Upload
dean-beassie
View
27
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aerospace Vehicle Design Capstone Project
‘Suborbital Space Tourism Applications’
Stella Nova Aeronautics
- Fall 2014 -
Final Analysis Report: The Next Generation X-15 Aircraft
Submitted to
Dr. Brand Chudoba, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
by
Rockford D. Beassie, Jr.
E-mail: [email protected]
in Partial Fulfillment of Course Requirements
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 1 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
THE NEXT GENERATION X-15 AIRCRAFT
Abstract:
The objective of this project is to study NASA’s X-15 research aircraft and provide
measures to increase its flight capabilities. This objective is separated into two separate flight
regimes, both of which are outlined below.
The first regime would encapsulate an air-drop launch at an initial altitude of 50,000 feet
and obtain a final ceiling height of at least 361,000 feet (100 km), where the craft would sustain
itself for at least four minutes under microgravity conditions. This would allow passengers to
experience the thrill of commercialized space flight. The X-15 will then re-enter the earth’s
atmosphere and land at our proposed airfield.
The second regime will constitute a horizontal take-off and horizontal landing (HTHL)
design, where the X-15 will depart from our proposed airfield and attain the same flight ceiling
and constraints outlined in the first regime, and then land at the same airfield.
This report is intended to provide a feasibility study to the reader of the versatility of the X-
15 to meet today’s ever-changing market demands and entails a comprehensive cost analysis of
our proposed design.
As an active member of Stella Nova’s Synthesis, Costs & Certification divisions, the focus of
my work is provide a feasibility study to the reader of the versatility of the X-15 to meet today’s
ever-changing market demands. This report is the bi-product of this work, and as such, also
entails a comprehensive cost analysis of our proposed design.
The overall success of this project is accomplished through a collaborative effort of several
members of the Stella Nova community. My hope is that these efforts have been justified
herein.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 2 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work Disclosure Statement ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Capstone Project Scope .......................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Capstone Mission Requirements ............................................................................................ 8
2 Project Development ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Team Structure........................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Team Responsibilities and Scope ......................................................................................... 10
2.3 Team Multi-Disciplinary Analysis Plan ............................................................................... 10
2.4 Team Dynamics .................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Synthesis Group's IDA ...................................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Cost and Certification Group’s IDA ................................................................................. 12
3 Data-Base Development ............................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.1 X-15 Background and Research ....................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Mission 1: Air-Launch (ALTO) Applications For the Modified X-15 ............................. 15
3.1.3 Mission 2: HTHL-SSTO Applications For the Modified X-15 ........................................ 18
3.1.4 Other Suborbital Vehicles in Development ...................................................................... 21
3.1.5 Cost Comparisons For Existing Commercial Space Tourism Configurations ................. 21
4 Knowledge-Base Development..................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Trade Studies ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1.1 Current and Projected Market Demand For Commercialized Space Travel .................... 22
4.1.2 Parametric Sizing Study .................................................................................................... 26
4.1.3 Cost Trends ....................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.4 Carrier Cost Estimates for the Modified X-15 ALTO Mission ....................................... 32
4.1.5 Airport versus Spaceport................................................................................................... 34
5 Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 37
5.1 Original X-15 Design Costs.................................................................................................. 37
5.2 Estimated RTD&E Cost Comparisons ................................................................................. 40
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 3 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
5.3 Total Estimated Cost Comparisons ...................................................................................... 42
5.4 Fuselage Modification Cost Comparisons ............................................................................ 45
5.5 Competition Comparisons .................................................................................................... 47
6 ABET Objectives and Discussion ................................................................................................. 48
6.1 Outcome C: DESIGN SYSTEM, COMPONENT OR PROCESS TO MEET NEEDS ...... 49
6.2 Outcome D: ABILITY TO FUNCTION ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS .............. 49
6.3 Outcome F: UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONAL & ETHICAL REASPONSIBILITY ...... 50
6.4 Outcome G: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY ........................................ 51
6.5 Outcome H: UNDERSTAND AND IMPACT OF ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS .......... 52
6.6 Outcome I: ENGAGE IN LIFELONG LEARNING ............................................................ 53
7 Final Design Proposal ................................................................................................................... 54
7.1 ATOL-SSTO Final Design Costs ......................................................................................... 54
7.2 HTHL-SSTO Final Design Costs ......................................................................................... 56
7.3 Final Configuration Compparisons ....................................................................................... 58
8 Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................. 61
9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 62
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 62
References ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Appendix A – Nomenclature ............................................................................................................... 67
Appendix B – Proposed Project Scope ................................................................................................ 69
Appendix C – Stella Nova’s Team Responsibilities ............................................................................ 70
Appendix D – Data-Base Development ............................................................................................... 71
Appendix E – Matlab Cost Code ......................................................................................................... 73
Appendix F – Original X-15 Cost Analysis ......................................................................................... 76
Appendix G – Calculated Results for the Original X-15 ..................................................................... 77
Appendix H – Final Configuration Calculations ................................................................................. 78
Appendix I – Fuselage Comparison Calculations ................................................................................ 80
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 4 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Senior Design Capstone Methodology. [1A] ......................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Stella Nova Aeronautics Team Structure. [3A] ..................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Stella Nova Multi-Disciplinary Analysis (MDA) Plan. [3A] ............................................... 10 Figure 4. Process Methodology. [3A] .................................................................................................. 11 Figure 5. Synthesis Group’s IDA. [4A] .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Interdisciplinary Analysis (IDA) Plan for Cost. ................................................................... 12 Figure 7. Sectional View of the X-15-A-1. [6A] ................................................................................. 14 Figure 8. Design Plan for High-Altitude Missions. [6A] ..................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Design Plan for High-Speed Missions. [6A] ....................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Typical Air Launch (ALTO) Flight Plan. .......................................................................... 15 Figure 11. Government Funded Air-Drop Aircraft Designs. [9A, 15A, 16A, 17A] ........................... 16 Figure 12. Flight Plan for Virgin Galactic’s Space-Ship 2. [9A] ........................................................ 17 Figure 13. Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser - Stratolaunch Configuration. [16A] ................................. 17 Figure 14. HTHL-SSTO Flight Plan. ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 15. Similar HTHL Aircraft Designs. [10A-12A, 4A] ............................................................... 19 Figure 16. Illustration of the LYNX Mk. 11’s Flight Plan and Design Configuration. [10A] ........... 19 Figure 17. Simulated Model and Flight Plan of the EADS Astrium Space Plane. [13A] ................... 20 Figure 18. Bristol Ascender Space Plane and Flight Path. [12A] ........................................................ 20 Figure 19. FAA’s Current Market Analysis for Commercial Space Travel. [18A] ............................ 23 Figure 20. Current Commercial Space Tourism Assessments by the FAA [18A]. ............................ 23 Figure 21. World-wide Space Launches for 2014. [18A] .................................................................... 24 Figure 22. Commercial Launch Revenues for 2014. [18A] ................................................................. 24 Figure 23. Projected Revenue Potential For Space Tourism. [7C] ...................................................... 25 Figure 24. Projected Market Demand Using Different Market Maturation Periods. [7C] ................. 26 Figure 25. Roskam’s Parametric Sizing Methodology. [4A] .............................................................. 26 Figure 26. Wing Span versus Fuselage Length Comparisons of Different SAV Configurations. [3A]
.............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 27. Wing Area versus Weight Comparisons of Different SAV Configurations. [3A] ............. 28 Figure 28. Wing Area versus Fuselage Length of Different SAV Configurations. [3A] .................... 28 Figure 29. Preliminary Sizing Chart for Take-off Conditions. [4A] ................................................... 29 Figure 30. Historical Launch Cost Trends. [6C] .................................................................................. 30 Figure 31. Estimated Launch Costs Trends. [6C] ............................................................................... 30 Figure 32. Cost per Payload Pound for Existing Space Launch Systems. [6C]................................... 30 Figure 33. US Economic Escalation Factors (CPI). [9C] ................................................................... 31 Figure 34. Historical Hourly Wage Trends. [6C, 9C] ........................................................................ 31 Figure 35. Historical Material Price Conversion Factors. [9C] ........................................................... 32 Figure 36. Historical Hourly Manufacturing Rates. [9C] .................................................................. 32 Figure 37. Life-Cycle Costs for Different Carrier Aircraft Configurations. [15A] ............................. 34 Figure 38. Major Domestic Airport Fees per Passenger Boarded. ...................................................... 35 Figure 39. Noise Level Comparisons and Threshold Limits. [22A] .................................................... 36 Figure 40. Current and Future Spaceport Locations. [18A] ............................................................... 36 Figure 41. Normalized Component Cost Breakdown for the Original X-15. [7A] ............................. 38 Figure 42. Life-Cycle Costs for the Original X-15. ............................................................................. 39
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 5 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 43. RTD&E Cost Breakdown. .................................................................................................. 43 Figure 44. Total Production Costs of the X-15’s Original Design Configuration. .............................. 44 Figure 45. Production Costs Decrease Per Number in Operation. ....................................................... 44 Figure 46. Comparison of Wide and Narrow Body Fuselage Designs [15A]. .................................... 45 Figure 47. Fuselage Cost Comparisons................................................................................................ 46 Figure 48. Mean Estimated Developmental Costs of Current Market Competitors. ........................... 48 Figure 49. Final Design Configuration. [15A] .................................................................................... 54 Figure 50. Estimated Total Cost versus T/W ratio for the ATOL Mission.......................................... 56 Figure 51. Estimated Total Cost versus T/W ratio for the HTHL-SSTO Mission. ............................. 58 Figure 52. Total Cost versus Number of Craft in Operation. ............................................................. 59 Figure 53. Total Cost-Per-Pound versus Number of Craft in Operation. ............................................ 60 Figure 54. Total Cost versus Wing Loading. ....................................................................................... 60 Figure 55. Overall Life-Cycle Costs for the Modified X-15. .............................................................. 60 Figure 56. Stella Nova’s Company Brochure. ..................................................................................... 61 Figure 57. Proposed AVD Project Scope. [1B] ................................................................................... 69 Figure 58. Screenshot of Personal Aerospace Vehicle Design Database. ........................................... 71 Figure 59. Stella Nova Aerospace Vehicle Design Database. ............................................................. 72
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 6 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mission Requirements. [2A] .................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Synthesis Responsibilities. .................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Current Developmental SAV’s. [18A] .................................................................................. 21 Table 4. Space Tourism Competitors. [3A] ........................................................................................ 21 Table 5. Cost Comparisons for Carrier Aircraft Projects. [8C] ........................................................... 22 Table 6. SAV Competitors Design Comparisons. [3A] ...................................................................... 27 Table 7. Weight Capacity of Different Carrier Configurations [15A]. ................................................ 33 Table 8. Life-Cycle Costs for Different Carrier Aircraft Configurations. [15A] ................................. 33 Table 9. Average Costs Per Flight for Carrier Aircraft. ....................................................................... 33 Table 10. Air Launch versus Rocket Launch Trade-offs. .................................................................... 34 Table 11. Major Domestic Airport Cost Comparisons [19A] ............................................................. 35 Table 12. Cost Breakdown for the Original X-15. [7A] ..................................................................... 38 Table 13. Published Cost Estimates for the X-15 As-Built. [7A] ........................................................ 39 Table 14. RTD&E Estimates for the X-15. .......................................................................................... 40 Table 15. Developmental Cost Estimate Comparison of the Original X-15 Configuration. ............... 43 Table 16. Derived Aircraft Weights from the Structures Group [15A]. .............................................. 45 Table 17. Fuselage Cost Comparisons. ................................................................................................ 46 Table 18. Current Market Competitor Developmental Cost Estimates. [7A-13A] .............................. 47 Table 19. Final Proposed Air Launch Mission Characteristics. [3A] .................................................. 55 Table 20. Estimated Air-Launch Developmental Costs. ...................................................................... 55 Table 21. Estimated Air Launch O&M Costs. ..................................................................................... 55 Table 22. Estimated Total Air-Launch Mission Costs. ........................................................................ 56 Table 23. Final Proposed HTHL-SSTO Mission Characteristics. [3A] .............................................. 57 Table 24. Estimated HTHL-SSTO Developmental Costs. .................................................................. 57 Table 25. Estimated HTHL-SSTO O&M Costs. ................................................................................. 57 Table 26. Estimated Total HTHL-SSTO Mission Costs. ..................................................................... 58 Table 27. Total Mission Cost Comparisons. ........................................................................................ 59 Table 28. Proposed Cost Per Seat Comparison for Stella Nova’s Horizon 1. [9A] ............................. 59 Table 29. Recap of Subgroup Responsibilities. [3A, 4A] .................................................................... 70 Table 30. LCC Calculations for the X-15. [7A] .................................................................................. 76 Table 31. Estimated O&M Cost Drivers. [7A] .................................................................................... 76 Table 32. Calculated Costs for the Original X-15 (Nicolai’s Methodology). ...................................... 77 Table 33. Calculated Cost Estimates for Both Missions. ..................................................................... 78 Table 34. Cost Per T/W for each Mission. ........................................................................................... 78 Table 35. LCC Calculations for the Final Configuration. .................................................................... 79 Table 36. Calculations for Fuselage Comparisons. .............................................................................. 80
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 7 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary proposal for a modified design of the X-15
aircraft to support space tourism. This evaluation is composed of a detailed feasibility study, complete
with a parametric analysis to identify an effective solution space based on technological trade-offs and cost
comparisons of different air and space craft designs available today. Suggested changes are also provided
to accommodate future mission capabilities of the X-15, as technology evolves and demands dictate.
As an active member of Stella Nova’s Synthesis Group and supportive associate of the Cost &
Certifications Division, the focus of this report will be to provide a thorough overview of the X-15’s
modifications to conform to mission directives and exceed the space tourism community’s expectations.
Guidance provisions are also included in this report to validate certification requirements, cost
comparisons and simulation needs based on current state-of-the-art technologies. Therefore, the intent
held herein is to support our company’s combined efforts to birth new life in the X-15.
1.2 CAPSTONE PROJECT SCOPE
The project scope set forth for this team was established by Dr. Bernd Chudoba, on January 22,
2015. Dr. Chudoba is director of the Aerospace Vehicle Design (AVD) Laboratory, at the University
of Texas at Arlington, in Arlington, Texas. The purpose of this project is to provide senior-level
aerospace engineering undergraduates with real-world experience in parametric studies to seek
convergence to an effective solution space governed by mission demands and technology trades. In
turn, this effort affords our team the opportunity to gain insight to the “bigger perspective” of
aerospace engineering and equips team members with the tools necessary to provide employers with
all the information needed to make educated decisions. This is commonly recognized by the university
and its peers as the senior design capstone course. An illustration of the methodology is shown below
in Figure 1, courtesy of Dr. Chudoba [1A].
Figure 1. Senior Design Capstone Methodology. [1A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 8 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
In keeping with the spirit of this capstone curriculum, the following scope has been defined by Dr.
Chudoba for this team [2A]:
Develop a modified version of the X-15 for sub-orbital flight to meet the demands of
commercial space tourism
Provide a comparative evaluation of air-dropped versus horizontal ground launches using
single-stage-to-orbit proposals
Construct a sizing-level study that best converges to an effective solution space to meet
mission requirements
These are the governing parameters used to drive the mission requirements. An illustration of the
proposed project scope, as defined by Dr. Chudoba, is provided in Appendix B.
1.3 CAPSTONE MISSION REQUIREMENTS
The mission requirements laid out for this project are two-fold, but inter-related. This project
encompasses two separate missions tailored to meet similar commercialized space travel design
constraints. For the first mission, this team is tasked to provide a modified derivative of the X-15’s
original 1958 design to allow for an air-drop from a B-52 bomber at 50,000 feet, with an initial launch
velocity of 500 miles per hour and traverse the atmosphere in a parabolic path to a minimum sub-
orbital altitude of 328,000 feet. It will then be required to maintain microgravity flight at this altitude
for a limited time window of 3-5 minutes. The craft will then re-enter the earth’s atmosphere and land
horizontally at a specified air field (still to be determined). The second mission requirements are
similar with the exception that the X-15 will be required to take-off and land horizontally at an airfield
(also yet to be determined). Both missions will be required to carry a payload of two crew members
and 6 passengers and are expected to use single-stage rocket propulsion technology. A summary of
each mission and associated requirements are detailed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Mission Requirements. [2A]
Description Mission 1: Air Launch Take-off
& Horizontal Landing (ALTO)
Mission 2: Horizontal Take-off
& Horizontal Landing (HTHL)
Launch Altitude: 50,000 ft. Sea Level
Launch Means: B-52 None
Launch Location: TBD TBD
Launch Velocity: 500 mph 0 mph
Max Mach No.: 3 3
Apogee: 328,000 ft. 328,000 ft.
Loiter Duration: 3-5 min 3-5 min
Propulsion System: Single-Stage Rocket Single-Stage Rocket
Landing Location: TBD TBD
Crew: 2 2
Passengers: 6 6
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015 Page: 9 of 81 Pages
Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
The underlying measure of merit for this project is to provide a competitive alternative to existing
and future designs proposed to the space tourism community. As such, two additional mission
requirements are added to our scope:
Total passenger costs to not exceed $220,000.00
Provide a comparative analysis between seated only flight and free-movement capabilities
during zero-g loitering.
2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
This project involved a cohesive blend of expertise in a vast range of disciplinary fields. To make this
come together, our team was tasked to provide a detailed list of proposed subgroups needed to achieve
overall mission success. The formats used to merge these talents are outlined in the following subsections.
2.1 TEAM STRUCTURE
After the team convened into its respective disciplines, our Team Chief, Mr. Hoger Villegas,
formalized a team structure equipped with respective leads for each subgroup. The final team structure
of our organization is shown below in Figure 4, courtesy of Mr. Villegas.
Figure 2. Stella Nova Aeronautics Team Structure. [3A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 10 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
2.2 TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES AND SCOPE
After establishing respective roles for each member, the Synthesis Group, consisting of Mr.
Villegas, Ms. Shakya, and myself then established a list of tasks required of each subdivision. This
list was then submitted to all members to ensure accountability of expected responsibilities. A recap
of these findings can be viewed in Appendix C, under Table 2.
2.3 TEAM MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ANALYSIS PLAN
Once our team established a firm list of responsibilities and the overall scope for the project at hand,
gross driver variables were determined for each respective subgroup. After determining these gross
driver variables, a multidisciplinary analysis (MDA) plan was developed under the guidance of Mr.
Villegas and our synthesis team. Our MDA plan followed an input-analysis-output format to converge
all variables into a free-flowing system. The results of this MDA plan are shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Stella Nova Multi-Disciplinary Analysis (MDA) Plan. [3A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 11 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
2.4 TEAM DYNAMICS
The process methodology developed for
our team was modeled in detail by Mr.
Villegas to provide clarification about the
iteration process required within each
respective subgroup, and is shown adjacently
in Figure 4. This flow chart is intended to
provide guidance to all groups about how to
structure their individual disciplinary
analysis plans to utilizing initial mission
requirements and then seek converging each
group’s gross-driver variables until an
effective solution space is found. As such,
the model inevitably illustrates the founding
principles expected to govern our team’s
overall dynamics and is derived from Jan
Roskam’s work, “Airplane Design Volume 1 -
Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes Aircraft
Design”. [5A]
2.4.1 SYNTHESIS GROUP'S IDA
As a member of the Synthesis Division, I am
responsible for providing preliminary design estimates
for the aircraft configuration, act as a liaison between
the Team Chief and my supportive subgroups (which
include the Aerodynamics & Aerothermal, Costs &
Certification, and Geometry & Weights), and provide
general guidance and validation as needed to each
respective discipline.
After establishing a weekly meeting schedule with
the other members of the Synthesis team, we set out to
determine the appropriate IDA for our group. The
results of this discussion were formally modeled by Ms.
Shakya to conform to Mr. Villega’s team dynamics
methodology referenced in Figure 4, and are provided
adjacently, in Figure 5. Due to the time constraints established for this project,
the work load afforded to the Synthesis Group was
separated between each of the three team members. As
such, the primary responsibilities of each assigned task will
be relayed to that team member. A breakdown of these
responsibilities is shown on the following page in Table 2.
Figure 4. Process Methodology. [3A]
Figure 5. Synthesis Group’s IDA. [4A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 12 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 2. Synthesis Responsibilities.
Mr. Hoger Villegas Ms. Suchita Shakya Mr. Rockford Beassie
Basic Geometric Configuration GTOW Take-off Requirements
Lifting Body Configurations Fuel Weight Landing Requirements
Fuselage Sizing Propulsion Sizing Certification Requirements
Wing Sizing Thrust/Weight Analysis Preliminary Cost Analysis
2.4.2 COST AND CERTIFICATION GROUP’S IDA
After this team established a formal structure, Ms. Mikayla Davis and I were assigned to the Costs
& Certification Division, with Ms. Davis as Lead Engineer for this group. Our primary responsibilities
are to provide guidance to the Stella Nova team about federal, commercial and military certification
requirements, as well as develop a cost feasibility study and flight simulation models to validate this
team’s efforts.
In hopes to share the work load in the most efficient manner possible, the cost and certification
segments of this analysis were separated into two separate entities, in hopes to share the work load in
the most efficient manner possible. As such, Ms. Davis will be taking the lead in certification and
simulation protocols, whereas costing will be provided by me.
Based on this work plan, Ms. Davis and I set out to derive appropriate IDA models for our
division. The IDA plan developed by myself for the costing segment of this project is shown below in
Figure 6. Ms. Davis will be providing a separate IDA plan for the certification segment and can be
viewed in her upcoming report.
Figure 6. Interdisciplinary Analysis (IDA) Plan for Cost.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 13 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
As proposed in this plan, on the bottom right section of Figure 6, we will follow a shared input-
analysis-output format for our Cost & Certification Division. The input variables provided by the
mission requirements are launch and landing platforms, payload requirements, apogee elevation, and
loiter duration. The structural group will then provide the input variables of structural weight and
composition, while the performance group will provide maximum speed, burnout elevation and range
requirements needed for this analysis. The propulsions group will provide the available thrust,
expected fuel compositions and weights, after convergence is achieved between their analysis and that
derived by the performance group.
Certification requirements are provided by Ms. Davis, and will be required to determine O&M
needs based on noise constraints for the HTHL phase of this project. This will likely limit the launch
facility options of this analysis to privatized venues. The air-launch (ALTO) approach will also
require a modified analysis of carrier vessels (a.k.a. mothership), but this analysis will be limited to
historical data, as this tends to fall outside the scope of this project.
3 DATA-BASE DEVELOPMENT
For this project, this team is in the process of developing a main data base, stored in a Google share-
drive, to be referenced by each team-member. Shared within this database are collected reference
materials (with their respective sources), relevant charts and tables of the X-15(as it was originally
constructed), competitor design material, and all formal deliverables produced by this team in the
form of drawings, spreadsheets, calculations, and evaluations. Specifically, this data base will include
all of the following material:
Mission Requirements
Gross Driver Variables
Aircraft Design Literature
Aviation Reports
Aircraft Models
Aircraft Features and Characteristics
NACA/NASA Research Results
Flight-Logs
Similar Aircraft Comparisons
Data Analysis Results
Screen-shots of my individual data-base development, and some relevant documentation posted
by myself to Stella Nova’s share-drive can be viewed in Appendix D, under Fig. 58-59.
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Shown in the following subsections is collected documentation for the X-15 as it was originally
designed, and collected literature relevant to support the space tourism missions detailed within the
project scope.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 14 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.1 X-15 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH
This aircraft was the cooperative work of North American Aviation, NASA, the US Air Force and
Navy. The primary purpose of the X-15 was, as the NACA Committee of Aerodynamics suggested in
their official resolution, dated on October 5, 1954, “…to explore the effects of flight in the hypersonic
regime and compare the actual flight performance with wind-tunnel and analytical testing methods”
[6A]. After winning the bid, North American Aviation rolled out the first X-15 on October 15, 1958
at their facility in Inglewood, California [6A]. An illustration of the final product is shown on the
following page, in Fig. 7.
Figure 7. Sectional View of the X-15-A-1. [6A]
By the time the history of the X-15 was finally written, she proved to be one of the finest aircraft
ever built, exceeding NASA’s expectations buy reaching a maximum speed of Mach 6.7 (4520 mph)
during its 198th flight and achieving a maximum flight ceiling of 354,280 feet its 92nd flight [8A]. This
far exceeded the design requirements of the X-15, as shown in Fig. 8-9.
Figure 8. Design Plan for High-Altitude Missions. [6A]
Figure 9. Design Plan for High-Speed Missions. [6A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 15 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.2 MISSION 1: AIR-LAUNCH (ALTO) APPLICATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED X-15
The mission of this coursework is to model the payload capabilities and similar flight profiles of
the X-15 and Spaceship–2. Therefore, our design requirements will be governed to follow similar
constraints:
• Payload = 2 Crew + 6 passengers
• Launch Elevation = 50,000 feet
• Launch Velocity = 134 mph
• Maximum Velocity = 2,591 mph
• Maximum Mach No.= 3.9
• Maximum Altitude = 361,000 feet
3.1.2.1 ALTO-SSTO FLIGHT PLAN
The flight plan developed for the ALTO-SSTO mission is shown below, in Fig. 10. This plan was
designed and proposed by myself, and is awaiting final approval from Mr. Villegas. The critical
points of interest for this project are numbered 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Assuming our design is successful at
the points, all other noted locations along the flight envelop will conform to expected safety and
certification needs.
Figure 10. Typical Air Launch (ALTO) Flight Plan.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 16 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.2.2 GOVERNMENT FUNDED ALTO AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATIONS
The following sections entail a list of similar successful air-dropped aircraft configurations. A
few different existing government funded configurations are shown below in Fig. 11. Looking from
the top down in a clockwise pattern are NASA’s Boeing 747-400 Freighter, and the Russian Antonov
An-225 Mriya Shuttle Carriers, as well as Boeing’s NB-52B-008 (a.k.a. “Balls 8”) launch
configurations shown for the X-15 and Dream Chaser programs.
Figure 11. Government Funded Air-Drop Aircraft Designs. [9A, 15A, 16A, 17A]
3.1.2.2.1 COMMERCIALIZED ALTO-SSTO COMPETITORS
Shown in the following subsections are a few commercialized space tourism competitors currently
on the market. A comparative analysis of these competitors will follow in the knowledge base
development section of this report.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 17 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.2.2.2 VIRGIN GALACTIC’S SPACE-SHIP TWO
Virgin Galactic’s Spaceship–2 (SS-2) was developed under a Tier-1B program designed to foster
space commercialization after winning the Ansari X-Prize with their initial design Spaceship–1 (SS-1)
[9A]. Both SS-1 and SS-2 were designed with similar drop elevations, differing primarily in payload
requirements. The SS-2 was designed to carry a payload of six passengers and two pilots, and as such
will be used in our formal analysis. An illustration of SS-2’s flight plan is shown on the following
page in Fig. 12.
Figure 12. Flight Plan for Virgin Galactic’s Space-Ship 2. [9A]
3.1.2.2.3 SEIRRA NEVADA’S DREAM CHASER STRATOLAUNCH
Backed by billionaire software developer, Paul
Allen, and Scaled Composites founder, Burt Rutan;
the Sierra Nevada Corporation has revamped their
Dream Chaser Program to become adaptable to air-
launch systems through a merged venture with
mothership developer, Stratolaunch Systems [16A].
An illustration of this design configuration is shown
in Fig. 13.
This is an effort formed in conjunction with
their original idea of vertical booster launch methods
initially proposed for their bid to NASA for
shuttling astronauts to and from the international
space station. Plans are on the works for the Dream Figure 13. Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser - Stratolaunch Configuration. [16A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 18 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Chaser - Stratolaunch derivative to be flown from the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) at Kennedy
Space Center (KSC), in Florida. An illustration of this design configuration is shown on the previous
page in Fig. 13.
3.1.3 MISSION 2: HTHL-SSTO APPLICATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED X-15
The second mission directives dictate a horizontal take-off and horizontal landing. The payload
requirements, altitude, micro-gravity duration and maximum speed will remain the same as the first
mission. Therefore, our design requirements will follow similar constraints:
• Payload = 2 Crew + 6 passengers
• Launch Elevation = 0 feet
• Launch Velocity = 0 mph
• Maximum Velocity = 2,591 mph
• Maximum Mach No.= 3.9
• Maximum Altitude = 361,000 feet
3.1.3.1 HTHL FLIGHT PLAN
The flight plan developed for the HTHL-SSTO mission is shown below, in Fig. 14. This plan was
designed and proposed by myself, and is awaiting final approval from Mr. Villegas. The critical
points of interest for this project are numbered one thru seven. Assuming our design is successful at
the points, all other noted locations along the flight envelop will conform to expected safety and
certification needs.
Figure 14. HTHL-SSTO Flight Plan.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 19 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.3.2 SIMILAR AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATIONS
Shown below in Figure 15 are a few comparable HTHL spacecraft configurations our team
reviewed. These aircraft are noted from right to left to be the Rockwell Star-Raker, ARCA’s IAR 111,
XCOR’s Lynx II, the EADS Astrium, and Bristol’s Ascender.
Figure 15. Similar HTHL Aircraft Designs. [10A-12A, 4A]
In an effort to ascertain a feasible analysis for this report, we limited our comparisons to those
craft configurations that proved relevant to today’s market demands. These configurations are
detailed in the following sub-section for HTHL design specifications.
3.1.3.2.1 XCOR’S LYNX MK. II
XCOR Aerospace, based out of Mojave, California, is approaching the space tourism market with
the LYNX Mark II. The Mark II is a production version of their Mark I, and is designed to fly at
328,000 feet, carrying a single passenger payload, runs strictly on rocket propulsion and is intended to
provide a turn-around time of two hours between flights, while servicing four suborbital flights per
day. The flight plan and configuration of the Lynx II is shown below in Fig. 16.
Figure 16. Illustration of the LYNX Mk. 11’s Flight Plan and Design Configuration. [10A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 20 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.3.2.2 EADS ASTRIUM
The European Airbus Defence and Space Group has also joined the commercial space race with
the EADS Astrium. This is a space plane derivative, intended to provide a hybrid jet/rocket propulsion
system to achieve suborbital flight. The design and proposed flight plan is shown below in Fig. 17.
Figure 17. Simulated Model and Flight Plan of the EADS Astrium Space Plane. [13A]
3.1.3.2.3 BRISTOL’S ASCENDER
In a similar manner, Bristol Spaceplanes Limited is joining the commercial space tourism
community with the Ascender. This is also space plane derivative, with the same intent to provide a
hybrid jet/rocket propulsion system to achieve suborbital flight. The design and proposed flight plan
is shown below in Fig. 18.
Figure 18. Bristol Ascender Space Plane and Flight Path. [12A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 21 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3.1.4 OTHER SUBORBITAL VEHICLES IN DEVELOPMENT
Several other SAV’s are currently in
their developmental stages. A few of
these up-and-comers are shown adjacently
in Table 3. This information was obtained
from the latest annual report released by
the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Office of Space Transportation (FAA-
AST) 2014 annual report for current space
tourism [18A]. It looks like all three are
following the same launch approaches as
our competitors, with similar payload and
mission objectives. As far as how they
play out, only time will tell.
3.1.5 COST COMPARISONS FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE TOURISM CONFIGURATIONS
Space tourism competitors providing relevant design configurations for horizontal take-off and
horizontal landing and air-launch take-off and horizontal landing are limited. Since these aircraft
configurations are relatively new to the regime of suborbital space flight - especially for space tourism
applications; noted successful designs are limited. A tabulated list was composed and finalized by
Mr. Villegas, our team Chief, and will be used by our team for competitive analysis of our final
design. It is shown below in Table 4.
Table 4. Space Tourism Competitors. [3A]
As one may expect, the developmental cost incurred by companies are closely guarded. Rough
estimates for some competitors are shown below and vary immensely [3A].
XCOR, Lynx -- $10 million
Craft Operation Ticket Cost Crew Passengers Payload Altitude Flight Time Microgravity Launch Platform
SpaceShipTwo Virgin Galactic 250,000.00$ 2 6 600 kg 110 km 90 min 3-5 min Spaceport
Lynx XCOR Space Expeditions 95,000.00$ 1 1 770 kg 100 km 30 min 5-6 min Spaceport
Boeing 727-200 Zero G Corporation 5,000.00$ 5 36 36000 kg 10 km 90 min 5 min/30 s intervals Airport
EADS Astrium Airbus Space and Defence 225,000.00$ 1 4 N/A 100 km 90 min 3-5 min Spaceport/Airport
Ascender Bristol Spaceplanes N/A 1 1 270 kg 100 km 30 min 2 min Spaceport/Airport
Rocketplane XP Rocketplane Kistler 250,000.00$ 1 5 450 kg 100 km 60 min 3-4 min Spaceport/Airport
Horizontal Take-off and Landing (HTHL) Space Tourism Competitors
Table 3. Current Developmental SAV’s. [18A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 22 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Rocketplane-Kistler, Rocket Plane XP -- $600 million
Spacefleet Ltd., Spacefleet SF-01 -- $260 million
Additionally, a cost comparison of similar carrier aircraft is shown in Table 5. This information,
provided by NASA will be used in to examine overall life-cycle cost estimates and technology trade-
offs [8C].
Table 5. Cost Comparisons for Carrier Aircraft Projects. [8C]
4 KNOWLEDGE-BASE DEVELOPMENT
In order to provide a successful solution to this project, and thorough analysis will be performed
within this subsection and divided between both mission segments. The three main objectives
expected to accomplish in the development of this knowledge-base are outlined as follows:
• Perform trade studies
• Perform parametric sizing study
• Perform cost analysis
The results from this study will be provided below.
4.1 TRADE STUDIES
Shown in the following sub-sections are the related trade-studies for this analysis.
4.1.1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED MARKET DEMAND FOR COMMERCIALIZED SPACE TRAVEL
Carrier Payload (lb) Recurring Cost/Flight LCC/lb Facility Support DDT&E Production Operations Total LCC
11,180 $113 $11,540 $91 $1,470 $12,430 $1,460 $15,451
4,040 $21 $7,360 $77 $660 $2,270 $550 $3,557
5,330 $27 $6,490 $89 $760 $2,620 $680 $4,149
15,450 $136 $9,860 $110 $1,550 $14,790 $1,800 $18,250
5,550 $24 $5,880 $94 $640 $2,490 $690 $3,914
7,300 $31 $5,240 $110 $760 $2,870 $840 $4,580
20,000 $157 $8,860 $129 $1,860 $17,140 $2,090 $21,219
7,150 $26 $5,320 $112 $860 $2,800 $770 $4,542
9,390 $34 $4,730 $132 $1,000 $3,230 $950 $5,312
17,090 $144 $9,630 $117 $1,630 $15,980 $1,920 $19,647
6,120 $25 $6,130 $101 $680 $2,930 $730 $4,441
8,060 $32 $5,400 $118 $810 $3,330 $890 $5,148
30,390 $347 $12,910 $284 $3,590 $40,260 $2,730 $46,864
10,300 $31 $5,130 $146 $870 $4,120 $1,040 $6,176
13,500 $40 $4,480 $172 $1,040 $4,600 $1,270 $7,082
49,950 $266 $5,950 $240 $2,940 $28,670 $3,770 $35,620
17,650 $39 $3,330 $217 $1,560 $3,920 $1,340 $7,037
23,060 $50 $2,980 $257 $1,780 $4,500 $1,670 $8,207
52,290 $478 $10,560 $388 $6,880 $54,980 $3,810 $66,058
18,170 $39 $4,600 $222 $3,550 $4,790 $1,330 $9,892
23,730 $50 $3,940 $263 $3,780 $5,380 $1,670 $11,093
AN-225 Mriya
White Knight 2
Dual Fuselage C-5
Concepts of Most Promising Characteristics (Cost in Millions $US, Circa 2010)
White Knight 1
747-100 SCA-911
747-400F
A380-800F
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 23 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
In order to see where we are going, sometimes we need to look at where we have been. Last year
was an exciting time for the commercial space industry. Since the unleashing of sole governmental
control of space access, and the dissolution of the space shuttle program to provide resupply missions
to the International Space Station, doors have flown open by eager investors and privatized
corporations. Stimulation packages like the X-Prize and federal monetary reshuffling to “contract
out” space missions like resupplying the aforementioned ISS, and not to mention delivering satellite
payloads to low-earth orbit (LEO), has breathed new life to the space age.
The Federal Aviation Administration provided insight to this new life with the following news
clips shown on Fig. 19-20 [18A].
Figure 19. FAA’s Current Market Analysis for Commercial Space Travel. [18A]
Figure 20. Current Commercial Space Tourism Assessments by the FAA [18A].
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 24 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
This excitement is not just a local thing, its effects are global! Shown below in Figures 21-22, are
documented world-wide activities involving commercial space applications. These figures were also
provided by the FAA’s current market report [18A].
Figure 21. World-wide Space Launches for 2014. [18A]
Figure 22. Commercial Launch Revenues for 2014. [18A]
A quick recap of today’s current world-wide launch predictions, as supplied by the FAA’s
Department of Space Tourism’s annual report [18A]:
Estimated revenues from twenty-three separate launch events totaled $2.36 billion
Commercial US launch revenues totaled $1.1 billion
Russian commercial launch revenues totaled $218 million
European launch revenues totaled $920 million
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 25 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
International (sea-launch) revenues totaled $95 million
Total commercial launch revenues up $500 million from 2013
Now that we know where we are, let’s look at where we are going. For this, we will turn to
predictions provided by the well-respected Futon Corporation.
In 2002, the Futron Corporation published a comprehensive study on commercialized space
tourism. This analysis, known as Futron’s “Space Tourism Market Study” was one of the first of its
kind to formally use poll sourcing from Zogby International to provide a means of forecasting orbital
and sub-orbital space tourism. This study was revisited in 2006, and is the most recent formal
proposed forecasting models. The results of expected passenger demand per year through 2021 based
on the base-line results, twenty-five and thirty year maturations are shown on the following page, in
Fig. 23. These results were derived from a Fisher-Pry S-Curve [7C].
The projected revenue potential was also compared to expected ticket prices, with the same
maturation considerations and can be viewed in Fig. 26. Based on these results, expected revenue
potential decreased to $676 million versus the original projected expectation of $785 million by 2021
[14A]. Likewise, from Figure 24, the base-line passenger projections suggest an initial increase from
5000 to 21,000 per year.
The Zogby poll, mentioned earlier was compiled with a select group of individuals with a net
worth of at least $1 million, and an annual income of more than $250,000 [7C]. The purpose of this
limitation was to complete a survey with individuals most likely to have the means to obtain initial
space travel opportunities.
Again, the results are shown on the following page in Fig. 23-24.
Figure 23. Projected Revenue Potential For Space Tourism. [7C]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 26 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 24. Projected Market Demand Using Different Market Maturation Periods. [7C]
4.1.2 PARAMETRIC SIZING STUDY
As a member of the Synthesis Group, I am responsible to
provide a first-order analysis of the modified X-15 design.
This will be accomplished using “Roskam’s Preliminary
Aircraft Design, Volume 1”, reference manual for guidance
[4A]. The intended methodology for our initial sizing is
shown adjacently, in Fig. 25.
As mentioned previously, the mission objectives included
in this project required two separate flight profiles. The air-
launch plan will incorporate additional momentum and less
fuel payload requirements due to the initial drop velocities
and altitudes, whereas the horizontal take-off design will
require a heavier fuel payload. In turn, this will require a
significant resizing of the wing structure for the ground
launch and additional retrofits to the mother-ship launch
platform.
Additionally, the mission requirements will require a
resizing of the original X-15’s fuselage to incorporate extra
passenger payload variances. Other modifications will
include stability and control, high-lift devices, power-plant,
Figure 25. Roskam’s Parametric Sizing Methodology. [4A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 27 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
fuel and oxidizer storage, and climate control changes. Therefore, this study will be broken into
separate sub-sections to address each issue separately.
Shown below is a list of comparisons we performed to derive the initial sizing configuration of
our aircraft. The result of this preliminary sizing analysis is shown in Table 6, and Fig. 26-29.
Table 6. SAV Competitors Design Comparisons. [3A]
Figure 26. Wing Span versus Fuselage Length Comparisons of Different SAV Configurations. [3A]
SAV Designer Material TPS Weight Length Height Wing Planform Wing Span Wing Area AR Sweep Sweep
SpaceShipTwo Scaled Composites Composites YEs N/A 18 m 5 m Delta 13 m N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lynx XCOR Aerospace Composites Yes 5200 kg 9 m 2.2 m Double Delta 7.5 m N/a N/A N/A N/A
Boeing 727-200 Boeing Aluminum No 44000 kg 47 m 10 m Swept Wing 33 m 153 m2 N/A N/A N/A
EADS Astrium Airbus Space and Defense Composites Yes 18000 kg N/A N/A Tapered/Canard N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ascender Bristol Spaceplanes N/A N/A 45000 kg 14 m N/A Double Delta 8 m N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rocketplane XP Rocketplane Kistler N/A N/A 9000 kg 14 m 4 m Double Delta 9 m N/A N/A N/A N/A
X-15 North American Aviation Al/Inconel X No 6620 kg 15 m 4 m Trapezoid 7 m 19 m2 2.5 N/A N/A
X-20 Dyna-Soar Boeing/AF Composites/Materials Yes 4500 kg 11 m 3 m Delta 6 m 32 m2 N/A 72 degrees 72 degrees
Concorde BAC Sud Aviation Aluminum No 78000 kg 62 m 12 m Double Delta 26 m 358 m2 1.7 N/A N/A
US Space Shuttle Boeing/Rockwell Aluminum Yes 69000 kg 37 m 17 m Double Delta 24 m 250 m2 2.26 81 degrees 45 degrees
Typhoon Alenia/Airbus/BAE Composites No 11000 kg 16 m 5 m Delta/Canard 11 m 51 m2 N/A N/A N/A
XB-70 Valkyrie North American Aviation Aluminum/Titanium No 130000 kg 58 m 9 m Delta 32 m 585 m2 1.75 65 degrees 65 degrees
Tu-144 Tupolev Aluminmum/Titanium No 130000 kg 66 m 13 m Double Delta 25 m 506 m2 N/A N/A N/A
y = 0.7049x - 1.0091 R² = 0.9754
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Win
g S
pan
(m
)
Length(m)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 28 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 27. Wing Area versus Weight Comparisons of Different SAV Configurations. [3A]
Figure 28. Wing Area versus Fuselage Length of Different SAV Configurations. [3A]
y = 0.0042x - 4.475 R² = 0.98
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Win
g A
rea
(m2)
Weight (m)
y = 11.99x - 141.14 R² = 0.9752
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Win
g A
rea
(m2 )
Length (m)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 29 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 29. Preliminary Sizing Chart for Take-off Conditions. [4A]
4.1.3 COST TRENDS
Shown in the following subsection is a compilation of historical trends in costing, inflation
correction factors and other pertinent information for this study.
4.1.3.1 HISTORICAL LAUNCH COSTS
Historical launch costs and trend-lines are shown on the following page in Fig. 30-32. These costs
approach 80% of total purchase price of the system. Due to limited non-governmental space vehicle
launch literature, this data was compiled from historical space-launch platforms, courtesy of NASA,
as documented by J.D. Hunley in his book, “Prelude to U.S. Space Launch Technology”, and is to be
used as a preliminary launch cost estimation tool [6C].
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
T/W
W/S
Clmax 1.4 Clmax 1.6 Clmax 1.8 Clmax 2.0 Proposed W/S
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 30 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 30. Historical Launch Cost Trends. [6C]
Figure 31. Estimated Launch Costs Trends. [6C]
Figure 32. Cost per Payload Pound for Existing Space Launch Systems. [6C]
$0.31 mil $1.1 mil
$31 mil $9 mil
$26 mil $90 mil
$66 mil $30 mil $30 mil $30 mil $32 mil
$30 mil $41 mil
Total Cost (US $)
Flig
ht
Syst
em
Minuteman III Minuteman II Minuteman I Polaris A3Polaris A2 Polaris A1 Titan II Titan IJupiter Thor Redstone Seargant
y = 214.62x + 1E+07 R² = 0.5994
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Co
st (
$U
S)
Take-off Weight (lb)
y = -11291ln(x) + 126493
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Pri
ce/P
aylo
ad P
ou
nd
Payload Weight (lb)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 31 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
4.1.3.2 COST ESCALATION FACTORS
For the upcoming cost analysis, projections were made of estimated costs from historical data,
current market pricing and future predictions. Data was taken from the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
and plotted to get an accurate trend-line for current market values. The result is plotted below in Fig.
33.
Figure 33. US Economic Escalation Factors (CPI). [9C]
Additional trends were obtained from an Air Force report generated by the RAND group for
estimating engineering and tooling labor rates, as well as projected material costs. The results are
provided below in Fig. 34-36. The data is slightly outdated but will be sufficient to provide the
necessary trend-lines for this assessment.
Figure 34. Historical Hourly Wage Trends. [6C, 9C]
y = 5772.3x - 1E+07 R² = 0.9977
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
$350,000.00
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
US
Co
nsu
me
r P
rice
Ind
ex
(CP
I)
Year
T = 2.883x - 5666 QC = 2.576x - 5058 E = 2.576x - 5058 M = 2.316x - 4552
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1965 1985 2005 2025 2045 2065
Ho
url
y R
ate
($
/hr)
Year
Tooling Engineering QC Manufacturing
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 32 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 35. Historical Material Price Conversion Factors. [9C]
Figure 36. Historical Hourly Manufacturing Rates. [9C]
4.1.4 CARRIER COST ESTIMATES FOR THE MODIFIED X-15 ALTO MISSION
For the air launch, a preliminary assessment was investigated with regard to different weight
launch capacities in a mother-ship. The results are tabulated in Table 7-9, courtesy of the NASA-
DARPA study [8C]. Our initial thoughts were to retrofit an Airbus A-380 or a Boeing 747, and
formal design configurations will be determined upon reward of contract.
y = -0.0002x3 + 1.1102x2 - 2181.4x + 1E+06 R² = 0.9984
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
Mat
eri
al P
rice
Co
nve
rsio
n
Fact
or
Year
y = 3.3568x - 6573.1 R² = 0.9363
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
$U
S B
illio
n
Year
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 33 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 7. Weight Capacity of Different Carrier Configurations [15A].
Table 8. Life-Cycle Costs for Different Carrier Aircraft Configurations. [15A]
Table 9. Average Costs Per Flight for Carrier Aircraft.
Carrier Recap
Cost/Flight Pound: $1.18
Cost/Flight : $50,032.00
Cost/Passenger: $8,338.67
Shown on the following page are the proposed life-cycle costs associated with different carrier
craft configurations. As evident in Figure 37, an average cost of approximately $1.18 per pound of
payload would be required to achieve ALTO capabilities via existing mothership configurations. This
cost includes preliminary purchase and operational costs associated with the air-launch mission
derivative. A recap is shown above, in Table 9, based on averaged values for all existing
configurations.
Carrier Aircraft Company/Sponsor External Weight Capacity (lbs) Maximum Payload to LEO (lbs)
White Knight 1 Virgin Galactic 176000 11180
747-100-SCA-911 Boeing 240000 15440
A380-400F Freighter Airbus 264550 17090
747-400F Freighter Boeing 308000 20000
An-225 Mriya Antonov 440930 30380
White Knight 2 Virgin Galactic 750000 49940
Dual-fuselage C-5 Lockheed Martin 771620 52290
Weight Capacities of Different Carrier Configurations
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 34 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 37. Life-Cycle Costs for Different Carrier Aircraft Configurations. [15A]
A quick preliminary trade-off was also performed and is shown below in Table 10 for the benefits
if an air launch versus ground launch configuration. As one can see below, utilizing a mother ship to
provide an air-launch design greatly improves the versatility and efficiency for this project. Existing
launch sites are limited, and will likely remain that way because of economic and environmental
concerns associated with space-launch facilitation. Only a few sites are currently in operation, and
until space commerce achieves its expected popularity, limited launch sites will remain an issue.
The specialization and performance concerns are also a factor for the launch platform. Although
rockets provide nearly a two-fold increase in thrust potential versus modern air-breathing power plants
currently in operation, their specific impulse is limited. Therefore, more fuel is required to provide
the same propulsion capabilities. As such, an air launch would be more cost efficient. More about this
will be discussed later.
Table 10. Air Launch versus Rocket Launch Trade-offs.
4.1.5 AIRPORT VERSUS SPACEPORT
After performing a rather lengthy search, an analysis was performed on different fees imposed on
local airlines for utilizing commercial airports for space tourism applications. The results were not
WK-1
A380-800F 747-400F
747-100SC
AN-225M
WK-2
C5 -Dual
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
11,000 21,000 31,000 41,000 51,000 61,000
LCC
/Pay
load
Lb
($
mil)
Payload Weight (lb)
6 GE90s turbo fans generates 690,000 lbs thrust at sea level 3 SSMEs generates 1,125,000 lbs thrust
Average Isp ~ 2,000 seconds Average Isp ~ 400 seconds
1000’s commercially manufactured 100’s special made
Take-off from most commercial airports Mainly 2 fixed sites
Air Launch Rocket
ALTO Benefit Analysis
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 35 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
too surprising. As one may expect, the larger airports – like Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and
Chicago O’Hare offer more favorable cost incentives. This is shown in Table 11 and displayed
graphically in Figure 38. This information was pulled from the FAA’s BTA, “RITA” database [19A].
Table 11. Major Domestic Airport Cost Comparisons [19A]
For our concerns, typical commercial airport fees are around $10 per boarded passenger, or 6¢ per
payload pound. I expected the cost to be about 50¢ per payload pound, but this cost is likely
depreciated due to freight inclusions at international hubs. Interestingly enough, freight cost seem to
be higher in the mid-west. Perhaps that is due to larger distances from major shipping ports.
Figure 38. Major Domestic Airport Fees per Passenger Boarded.
After completing the initial cost analysis for commercial airport use, as examined for the HTHL
mission of this project, where it seems that DFW and Phoenix falling closely in-line with each other.
The downfall is that existing space-based manufacturing communities are not close by. This would be
another factor to consider when choosing a launch facility.
Another issue is noise pollution. Current FAA requirements stipulate limits of allowable noise at
commercial airports. These limits are strictly enforced in most metropolitan communities. Current
Locid Airport Name CY 13 Enplanements Landed Weight (kps) Airline Fees Total Ops PFCs Total Revenue Landing Fee Airline Cost / Emplanement Airline Cost /Payload Lb
LAX Los Angeles International 32425892 50206827 633600000 946793000 130512000 1122704000 227683000 29.19867247 0.018857854
ORD Chicago O'Hare International 32317835 4556000 417552000 679402000 147150000 598477000 13175952 21.02250971 0.149122476
DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International 29038128 4251000 132835000 256014000 122309000 624662000 104330000 8.816477426 0.060224418
DEN Denver International 25496885 5217930 214250549 661636943 103032044 605730557 137500000 25.94971672 0.126800655
PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International 19525109 1300000 10386134 181423080 2771132 17400024 5782754 9.291783211 0.139556215
MIA Miami International 19420089 35298496 374929000 795886000 72630000 884367000 61772368 40.98261342 0.022547306
SEA Seattle-Tacoma International 16690295 20602662 242314000 252937000 414011000 414011000 86943233.64 15.15473513 0.012276909
MDW Chicago Midway International 9915646 3189200 79445000 157371000 43025000 174831000 9223166.4 15.87097805 0.049344977
BNA Nashville International 5050989 6616828 84330333 112129122 13502385 149837968 94314 22.19943896 0.016946054
SJC Norman Y Mineta San Jose International 4315839 5771595 116347000 125710000 18161000 166997000 11973000 29.12759257 0.021780808
TUS Tucson International 1569932 2266479 3065212 47842526 6884959 68125878 36849783 30.4742664 0.021108744
Avg: 22.55352582 0.058051492
Std. Dev.: 9.37951391 0.051350758
0
10
20
30
40
50
Air
line
Co
st/E
np
lan
em
en
t ($
US)
Major Domestic Airport
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 36 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
limits are set at a maximum threshold of 75 WECPNL (Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived
Noise Level), which is the equivalent to an average daily noise rating of 75dB, as measured
throughout the day [22A]. Rocket engines produce noise levels greater than 130 dB at ignition, and
when compared to airport noise maps, show estimated noise levels to breach 112dB within the 10 km
limits usually set forth in FAR 25 standards. Therefore, commercial airport use is not likely for
ground launch methods, limiting its use of commercial airports to ALTO configurations. These limits
are shown below for illustrative purposes in Fig. 39.
Figure 39. Noise Level Comparisons and Threshold Limits. [22A]
This brings us to the next thought. Since space access requires large propulsion systems, which
are inherently noisy, why not build our own spaceport. This relaxes the noise limits imposed by city
ordinances and FAR requirements, which have been implemented for civil cohesiveness, and affords
the freedom to explore space applications at greater levels. Not to mention the potential tax breaks
attainable at the negotiating table. Shown below in Figure 40 is a map of the existing and proposed
launch facility locations, courtesy of the FAA’s latest commercial space tourism study, as referenced
in the Appendix [18A].
Figure 40. Current and Future Spaceport Locations. [18A]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 37 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
As one can see from Figure 40, most proposed and future spaceport and space-launch facilities are
expected to reside along the seaboards. This is practical, as it reduces the risk of catastrophic
incidents occurring within the continental United States, where densely populated communities could
be affected. These existing sites also often encompass military launch facilities, where current
infrastructure can easily be retrofitted to commercial space tourism applications.
These are often trade-offs to consider when deciding whether to build a new facility in Texas… or
Denver… or even Phoenix – which would be my recommendation. Since Phoenix is mid-way from
Texas and California, and according to Figure 38, has a lower transportation cost, and it is much less
densely populated than most competing states. This would limit associated launch risk factors, allow
more freedom to the design and modification process, and provide us with nice tax breaks along the
way.
5 COST ANALYSIS
The cost analysis provided in this report will address research, development, testing and
manufacturing a deviation of the X-15 to provide space tourism capabilities. As such, this report will
include historical trends, extrapolated cost projections, cost escalation factors, estimated man-hour
and hourly wage requirements. Estimated launch costs, maintenance costs, and expected life-cycle
costs will also be provided in this sub-section. For this analysis, the total life cycle cost (LCC) will
follow the “cradle to grave” approach and will be broken down into the following phases:
Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) Cost
Acquisition Cost
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
The LCC analysis covered herein will assume an estimated life-cycle of ten years, and follows
Leland Nicolai’s cost relations as entailed in, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, Volume I.
This analysis also assumes a cost trend similar to fighter aircraft and therefore will follow Nicolai’s
fighter design parameters for this first-order cost analysis.
5.1 ORIGINAL X-15 DESIGN COSTS
In order to get an accurate estimate of the costs associated with the X-15, an in-depth literature
search was performed to determine the actual costs of the X-15 program. After completion of this
task, a preliminary analysis was performed of the published development and operational costs
associated with the X-15 program [7A]. This analysis included a breakdown of all major components,
fuel, manufacturing, and operational costs. The result of this analysis is shown on the following page
in Table 12, along with their graphical representation in Fig. 41. A more in-depth overview of this
analysis can be viewed in the spread sheet calculations in Appendix F.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 38 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 12. Cost Breakdown for the Original X-15. [7A]
Original X-15 Component Breakdown
Cost % Total
Airframe $23,500,000 17.68
S&C $3,354,076 2.52
ACU $2,700,000 2.03
Ball Nose $600,000 0.45
Pressurization $2,700,000 2.03
Engine $68,373,000 51.45
Electrical $12,765,150 9.60
Hydraulics $4,255,050 3.20
Fuel $11,346,800 8.54
Retrofits $3,310,000 2.49
Total $132,904,076 100
Figure 41. Normalized Component Cost Breakdown for the Original X-15. [7A]
After completing the initial analysis of the X-15’s overall project costs, a formal life-cycle cost
estimate was performed. The result of this evaluation is shown on the following page in Fig. 42. The
X-15 program ran from 1958-1969, and cost a total of $300 million [7A]. That correlates to a total
cost of $2.34 billion in today’s money. As one may notice, the total RTD&E costs peaked at $260
million, while the O&M costs peaked at $193 million during its lifespan, while the overall RTD&E
costs tallied up to $1.05 billion with $1.29 billion in today’s money [7A]. These results can be seen in
the recap shown in Table 13.
Airframe: $23. 5 mil,
23.7%
Structural Carrier
Retrofits: $3.35 mil, 3.38%
Auxillory Control Unit
(ACU): $150k, 0.15%
Gyro Systems: $600k, 0.61%
Pressurization Systems $2.7mil, 23.72%
Engine: $68.4 mil,
68.95%
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 39 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 42. Life-Cycle Costs for the Original X-15.
Table 13. Published Cost Estimates for the X-15 As-Built. [7A]
Original X-15 Cost Recap
1955 2015 % Total
RTD&E $133 million $ 1.05 billion 45.07%
O&M $167 million $ 1.29 billion 54.93%
Total Cost $300 million $2.34 billion
As mentioned previously, the cost analysis provided in this report will address the overall LCC
analysis in three phases. The first phase discussed within this subsection covers the research,
development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) cost of this project. To get a rough idea of the expected
RTD&E bearing on LCC studies, Nicolai suggests RTD&E costs to fall in line with 4% of the overall
LCC for a B-52 bomber whereas it hits the LCC of an F-111 fighter design at 17% [1C]. Therefore,
for spacecraft designs, these costs should likely compose up to 20-30% of the total life-cycle cost of
this project. Significant time should be spent in the engineering research portion of this analysis,
before manufacturing costs take front stage to keep these costs at a minimum.
$192.75, 54.93%
$259.62, 45.07%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Co
st (
$ m
illio
ns)
Year
O&M (2015)
RTD&E (2015)
LCC (Circa1955)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 40 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
5.2 ESTIMATED RTD&E COST COMPARISONS
A breakdown of the RTD&E costs is provided in Table 14 of this section, adjusted to 2015 prices
per the Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor mentioned previously, provided by the RAND Corporation
[9C, 10C].
Table 14. RTD&E Estimates for the X-15.
The RTD&E costs shown herein are based on the following governing equations, broken into their
respective divisions as proposed by Nicolai [1C]:
CPI = 1.47
Wto = 27904.00
M0 = 0.81
Mbo = 4.10Mmax = 4.10
Eng_Rate = 132.64 Percentages
Development_Engineering_Hours = 5750200
Development_Engineering_Cost = $762,700,000 0.42631
Developmental_Support_Cost = $692,460,000 0.38705
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = $30,059,000 0.01680
Tooling_Rate = $143
Development_Tooling_Hours = 1533600
Development_Tooing_Cost = $219,680,000 0.12279
Manufacturing_Rate = 114.74
Development_Labor_Hours = 541970
Development_Labor_Cost = $62,186,000 0.03476
QC_Rate = 127.00
Development_Quality_Control_Hours = 41190Development_Quality_Control_Cost = $5,231,100 0.00292
Developmental_Material_Cost = $12,768,000 0.00714
Development_Engine_Cost = $3,632,300 0.00203
Development_Avionics_Cost = $366,240 0.00020
Developmental Costs
1.00000Total_RTD&E_Cost = $1,789,082,640
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 41 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Airframe Engineering Costs, ‘E’:
𝐸𝐻 = 4.86 𝑊0.777 𝑆0.894 𝑄0.163 (1)
𝐸𝑅 = 2.576𝑌 − 5058 (2)
𝐸 = 𝐸𝐻𝐸𝑅 (3)
Development Support Costs, ‘D’:
𝐷𝑖 = 66 𝑊0.63 𝑆1.3 (4)
𝐷 = 𝐷𝑖𝐶𝑃𝐼 (5)
Prototype Flight Testing Costs, ’F’:
𝐹𝑖 = 1852 𝑊0.325 𝑆0.822 𝑄𝐷1.21 (6)
𝐹 = 𝐹𝑖 𝐶𝑃𝐼 (7)
Engine and Avionics Costs, ’P’:
𝑃𝑖 = 23.06 [0.043𝑇𝑆𝐿𝑆+243.3𝑀𝑀𝐴𝑋 + 0.969𝑇𝑅 − 2228] (8)
𝑃 = 𝑃𝑖 𝐶𝑃𝐼 (9)
Labor Costs, ‘L’:
𝐿𝐻 = 7.37 𝑊0.82 𝑆0.484 𝑄0.641 (10)
𝐿𝑅 = 2.316𝑌 − 4552 (11)
𝐿 = 𝐿𝐻 𝐿𝑅 (12)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 42 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Manufacturing Material Costs, ‘M’:
𝑀𝑖 = 16.39 𝑊0.921 𝑆0.621 𝑄0.799 (13)
𝑀 = 𝑀𝑖𝐶𝑃𝐼 (14)
Tooling Costs, ‘T’:
𝑇𝐻 = 5.99 𝑊0.325 𝑆0.696 𝑄0.263 (15)
𝑇𝑅 = 2.883𝑌 − 5666 (16)
𝑇 = 𝑇𝐻 𝑇𝑅 (17)
Quality Control Costs, ‘QC’:
𝑄𝐶𝐻 = 0.076 𝐿𝐻 (18)
𝑄𝐶𝑅 = 2.6𝑌 − 5112 (19)
𝑄𝐶 = 𝑄𝐶𝐻𝑄𝐶𝑅 (20)
The subscripts ‘R’, ‘H’, and ‘Y’, as shown in the above equations, represent hourly pay rate, total
hours, and current year, respectively. These values were used with a CPI correction factor of 1.465; as
derived from the CPI index shown in Figure 33. This was needed to correlate Nicolai’s curve fitted
equations, as derived in 1998, to today’s cost figures.
The main variables used in this analysis were 𝑊, 𝑆, 𝑄, 𝑇𝑆𝐿𝑆, 𝑇𝑅 , and 𝑀𝑀𝐴𝑋, which represent the
empty weight, maximum speed, number produced, sea-level engine thrust, elevated engine thrust, and
maximum Mach number of the craft. These variables were given by the weight and performance
groups.
5.3 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST COMPARISONS
Based on the RTD&E results calculated from Nicolai’s methodology, a total developmental cost
estimate was concluded by summing all the individual costs into a single program. The results were
found to be 60% higher than published values. Therefore, the calculated values were scaled down to
provide an accurate cost estimate platform for all other deliverables. The corrected RTD&E cost
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 43 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
estimates are shown below in Table 15. As one may note, the corrected estimates are within 1.78% of
those published by NASA [7A]. The MatLAB code used for this analysis is shown in Appendix E.
Table 15. Developmental Cost Estimate Comparison of the Original X-15 Configuration.
Developmental Costs for Original Configuration
Engineering Rate = $132.64
Engineering Hours = 3,450,120
Engineering Cost = $457,620,000
Support Cost = $415,476,000
Flight Test Operation Cost = $18,035,400
Tooling Rate = $143.00
Tooling Hours = 920,160
Tooling Cost = $131,808,000
Manufacturing Rate = $114.74
Labor Hours = 325,182
Labor Cost = $37,311,600
QC Rate = $127.00
Quality Control Hours = 24,714
Quality Control Cost = $3,138,660
Material Cost = $7,660,800
Engine Cost = $2,179,380
Avionics Cost = $219,744
Total Estimated RDT&E Cost = $1,073,449,584
Published RTD&E Cost = $1,054,690,000
Variance = $18,759,584
Error = 1.78%
Shown adjacently in Figure 43
is a comparison of the RTD&E
cost breakdown. As one may
expect, preliminary engineering
design constitutes the majority of
developmental expenses. This was
calculated by normalizing all costs
associated with the developmental
of this spacecraft.
Shown in the next page, in
Figure 44 is an estimate of unit
cost per pound of empty eight. The
Engineering 42.63%
Support 38.71%
Flight Testing 1.68%
Tooling 12.28%
Labor 3.48%
Quality Control 0.29%
Materials 0.71%
Engines 0.20% Avionics
0.02%
Figure 43. RTD&E Cost Breakdown.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 44 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
values shown herein were submitted before calibrating this to the published results, but more
importantly is the fact that the trend follows a semi-linear profile after weights exceed 5,000 pounds.
This implies an expected cost increase of 0.25% per structural pound.
Figure 44. Total Production Costs of the X-15’s Original Design Configuration.
As the amount of production vehicles increase, one can see from Figure 45 that the cost per pound
drops by 3.4%. This plays an important factor when estimating break-even points during the planning
process. Therefore, this will be a key factor on forecasting profit margins.
Figure 45. Production Costs Decrease Per Number in Operation.
y = -0.0339x R² = 0.9594
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
% C
han
ge in
Co
st/L
b t
o C
raft
P
rod
uct
ion
Number of Operational SAV's
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 45 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
5.4 FUSELAGE MODIFICATION COST COMPARISONS
Since space tourism requires
comfort as a primary driver in this
project’s measure of merit, the cabin
layout was first to require a
comparative analysis. Mr. Hoger
Villegas, our Chief Engineer, tasked
this team to redesign the fuselage for
two separate configurations. The first
design would allow a single row of
seats that would fold away while in
micro-gravity flight. The second
design would accommodate two rows
of seats, also capable of retracting into
a fixed stow-away position. Each
design would provide seating for two
crew members and six passengers.
A comparison of two fuselage
designs is shown in Fig. 46. The
additional weight requirements for
each design were incorporated into
this analysis and are shown below in
Table 16.
Table 16. Derived Aircraft Weights from the Structures Group [15A].
Item Weights(lbs) X-Distance (in) Moment Arm (lbs-in)
Wing 1188.18 440.40 523273.21
Horizontal Stabilizer 180.75 622.01 112428.36
Vertical Stabilizer (upper) 537.08 605.92 325426.63
Vertical Stabilizer (lower) 683.44 606.77 414691.41
Alighting Gear (Nose) 129.93 58.99 7664.15
Alighting Gear (Rear Strut) 259.87 673.67 175063.94
Fuselage 3972.05 370.05 1469856.55
Cabin Fuselage 944.82 206.57 195167.14
Engine 871.33 656.26 571821.92
Propulsion Systems 944.29 656.26 619701.75
Aux. Powerplant 209.49 296.74 62166.04
PilotX2 604.52 123.97 74939.94
Passenger Set I X2 440.92 181.57 80056.37
Passenger Set II X2 440.92 213.57 94165.93
Passenger Set III X2 440.92 245.57 108275.50
Oxidizer 10505.97 380.29 3995317.96
Fuel (NH3) 8349.54 517.99 4324952.63
Fuel (H202 Engine Pumps) 721.24 609.08 439291.88
Fuel (H202 APU) 279.33 314.15 87749.86
Control Surfaces 1188.18 523.00 621415.58
Instrumentations 1377.87 92.83 127906.85
Total Weight (lbs) 34270.64 Tot. Mom. Arm (lbs-in) 14431333.59
Empty Weight (lbs) 14183.54
C.G. (in, from Nose) 421.10
Suborbital Wide Body Design
Item Weights(lbs) X-Distance (in) Moment Arm (lbs-in)
Wing 1188.18 470.40 558918.61
Horizontal Stabilizer 180.75 652.01 117850.88
Vertical Stabilizer (upper) 537.08 635.92 341538.92
Vertical Stabilizer (lower) 683.44 636.77 435194.73
Alighting Gear (Nose) 129.93 58.99 7664.15
Alighting Gear (Rear Strut) 259.87 703.67 182859.92
Fuselage 3972.05 400.05 1589018.01
Cabin Fuselage 1062.54 221.57 235422.61
Engine 871.33 560.26 488174.40
Propulsion Systems 944.29 560.26 529050.24
Aux. Powerplant 209.49 200.74 42054.61
Pilot X2 604.52 123.97 74939.94
Passenger 1 220.46 169.07 37272.41
Passenger 2 220.46 188.07 41461.19
Passenger 3 220.46 207.07 45649.96
Passenger 4 220.46 227.57 50169.44
Passenger 5 220.46 246.57 54358.21
Passenger 6 220.46 265.57 58546.99
Oxidizer 10505.97 410.29 4310497.06
Fuel (NH3) 8349.54 547.99 4575438.70
Fuel (H202 Engine Pumps) 721.24 639.08 460929.17
Fuel (H202 APU) 279.33 344.15 96129.62
Control Surfaces 1188.18 553.00 657060.83
Instrumentations 1377.87 92.83 127906.85
Total Weight (lbs) 34388.36 Tot. Mom. Arm (lbs-in) 15118107.45
Empty Weight (lbs) 14065.82
C.G. (in, from Nose) 439.63
Suborbital Slender Body Design
Figure 46. Comparison of Wide and Narrow Body Fuselage Designs [15A].
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 46 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Based on the information provided by the structures and propulsion groups, I was tasked to
provide a cost comparison of each fuselage design. The total cost estimation curve was calculated by
summation of the RTD&E costs for each configuration. The result is shown tabulated in Table 17 and
also plotted below, in Fig. 47. These calculations can be viewed in Table 36 of Appendix I. This
equates to 0.25% reduction in RTD&E costs for the wide-body design. Note: actual RTD&E cost is
$160 million less for the wide-body configuration, but when compared on a cost/pound basis, the
equated to higher overall costs. See calculations in Appendix I for further clarification.
Table 17. Fuselage Cost Comparisons.
Fuselage Cost Comparisons per Pound
Number Built: 1 2 3 5 10 Slender-Body Design: $328,600 $181,790 $130,030 $86,689 $52,201
Wide-Body Design: $327,800 $181,350 $129,710 $86,475 $52,065
Cost Variance: $800 $440 $320 $214 $136
Percent Difference: 0.24% 0.24% 0.25% 0.25% 0.26%
Avg. Percent Difference: 0.25% Deviation: 0.01%
Figure 47. Fuselage Cost Comparisons.
0
5
10
15
20
$2.79 $3.09 $3.31 $3.68 $4.43
1 2 3 5 10
1 2
3
5
10
Nu
mb
er
Pro
du
ced
Estimated Cost (in billions)
Slender-body Wide-Body
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 47 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
5.5 COMPETITION COMPARISONS
An analysis of current competitors was also carried out in order to estimate their developmental
costs. The results are shown below in Table 18 and Figure 48. Based on these results, the average and
mean developmental costs correlate to $87,040/pound GTOW and $87,651/pound GTOW,
respectively.
Table 18. Current Market Competitor Developmental Cost Estimates. [7A-13A]
Vehicle Company Unit Cost RTD&E Costs GTOW (lb) Cost /
Pound
SpaceShip One Scaled Composites $25,000,000 $25,000,000 7920 $3,157
SpaceShip Two Scaled Composites $250,000 $400,000,000 21473 $18,628
Lynx II XCOR Aerospace $95,000 $12,000,000 11464 $1,047
Boeing 727-200 Boeing $5,000 $57,200,000 209500 $273
EADS Astrium Airbus $225,000 $1,000,000,000 39683 $25,200
Ascender Bristol Spaceplanes $10,000 $600,000,000 121254 $4,948
Rocketplane XP Rocketplane Kistler $250,000 $206,800,000 19842 $10,423
X-15 North American
Aviation $67,488,506 $2,023,465,518 14595 $138,645
X-20 Dyna-Soar Boeing/AF n/a $5,513,043,419 9921 $555,705
Concorde BAC Sud Aviation $7,000 $12,000,000,000 171961 $69,783
US Space
Shuttle Boeing/Rockwell n/a $39,788,244,422 152119 $261,560
XB-70 Valkyrie North American
Aviation $750,000,000 $1,500,000,000 542000 $2,768
Tu-144 Tupolev n/a $350,000,000 455950 $768
Average $84,070
Mean $87,651
Error 4.26%
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 48 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 48. Mean Estimated Developmental Costs of Current Market Competitors.
6 ABET OBJECTIVES AND DISCUSSION
Part of this senior design capstone course is to satisfy the objectives set forth by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., commonly referred to as ABET. ABET is an non-
governmental organization, recognized by the Council for Higher Education (CHEA) to certify post-
secondary educational programs in the fields of “applied science, engineering, and engineering
technology” [20A]. As such, this section will address the work performed throughout the duration of
this project, and its pertinence to ABET standards.
There were six outcomes expected by ABET to validate this coursework and are outlined below in
the following outcomes [21A]:
Outcome C: DESIGN SYSTEM, COMPONENT OR PROCESS TO MEET NEEDS
Outcome D: AN ABILITY TO FUNCTION ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
Outcome F: UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONAL & ETHICAL REASPONSIBILITY
Outcome G: AN ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY
Outcome H: UNDERSTAND AND IMPACT OF ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS IN
GLOBAL & SOCIETAL CONTEXT
Outcome I: RECOGNIZE THE NEED & ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN LIFELONG
LEARNING
A brief explanation of each requirement is detailed herein, along with the work completed to
comply with these standards.
$0$5
$10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45
De
ve
lop
me
nta
l Co
st
(in
bil
lio
ns)
GTOW (Lbs)
Mean. Est. Cost: $87,651/lb.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 49 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
6.1 OUTCOME C: DESIGN SYSTEM, COMPONENT OR PROCESS TO MEET NEEDS
In order to satisfy the requirements outlined in Outcome C, this author was expected to
accomplish and demonstrate to following objectives, as outlined in the following ABET specifications
shown below [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Specify technical and managerial requirements for assigned team design project.
2. Request comprehensive literature search using professional-quality resources.
3. Task the teams & individual students to produce a team/individual semester task & time plan aimed at
producing a timely and performing system or component.
4. Specify mile-stone deliverables and their expected quality.
5. Question students during weekly contact team meetings about their design approach meeting the project
requirements.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Require and grade be-weekly individual design reports throughout the semester.
2. Require and grade by every student a report chapter explicitly outlining the product development strategy
and overall development plan.
3. Require and grade a detailed report discussing the design of a system, component or process to meet overall
mission objectives.
All these objectives were met throughout the development of this final report submission. The
key assignment laid for this project required bi-weekly reports, a mid-term report and a final report
detailing the technical requirements to fulfill the senior design project’s mission requirements outlined
in this report’s introduction, as well as the multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary methodology, as
well as the overall project development plan. The literature search was performed throughout this
project, with the resulting documentation submitted electronically to the senior design administrators
at the closure of this project. Some of the reference sources can be viewed in the reference section of
this report to verify the validity of such “professional sources”.
The mile-stone deliverables, time plan and meetings were discussed on a weekly basis, each
Monday, throughout this coursework.
6.2 OUTCOME D: ABILITY TO FUNCTION ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
The requirements outlined in Outcome D are shown below, as per ABET’s specifications, along
with the discussed results [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Divide class into two competing design teams, each consisting of disciplinary sub-team structure.
2. Assist teams in choosing a corporate identity and task to formulate a product development strategy and
business case.
3. Introduce the chief engineers to define a project multi-disciplinary methodology (MDA) and
responsibilities, and all disciplinary engineers to formulate corresponding individual disciplinary
methodologies (IDA) & responsibilities.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 50 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
4. Task project teams to produce (a) team/individual weekly update presentation(s), (b) biweekly individual
project report.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Collect from each team the written organization plan, assigned duties and time schedule for completing
tasks.
2. Require each team member to evaluate other members of the team as to his or her contributions to the
design project.
3. Observe and grade each team member’s contributions during weekly meetings and biweekly progress
reports.
For this year’s senior design capstone course, this class – with this author included, embarked
upon completing all the requirements outlined for Outcome D by following the specifications exactly
in the order noted above. This class separated into two separate teams in the first day of class each
semester and assigned team chiefs to represent each team. This year’s capstone course entailed two
separate projects involving the same vehicle configuration. Earlier this fall, I took on the role of team
chief as the Stella Nova team proceeded in competing in a comparative analysis primarily focusing on
reverse-engineering the X-15, to meet its original objectives – to successfully achieve hypersonic
speeds and reach altitudes above 100 km. This team’s competitor was led by Mr. David Woodward,
who continued to fulfil the role of team chief through the spring semester. For the second phase of
this year’s senior design course, the role of team chief for Stella Nova, initially administered by this
author, was voluntarily relinquished to Mr. Hoger Villegas, to allow him an opportunity to hone in his
skills as project lead. For the second portion of this course-load, the Stella Nova group continued to
provide a competitive analysis contrasted against Mr. Woodward’s group to provide a viable modified
derivative of the X-15 for space tourism applications, as detailed in this report.
After team chiefs were assigned, individual roles were established and assigned to each team
member to meet the assigned mission objectives. These objectives are also mentioned in the
introduction of this report. The assigned roles included synthesis, geometry, structures, aerodynamics,
stability & controls, propulsions, cost & certification, and performance. Members were then to
correlate with their respective group leads and determine their respective IDAs. The gross variables
and suggested deliverables were then submitted at the team meetings where the overall team MDA
was drafted by the team chiefs. Several versions of this team and group’s IDA/MDA proposals were
discussed and revised until the final iteration in the project development section of this report was
established. Bi-weekly team meetings were held on Mondays and Wednesdays to discuss the overall
progress of this project. The plans, bi-weekly, mid-term and final reports, as well as proposed
schedules and presentation deliverables were graded based on the merit outline herein.
6.3 OUTCOME F: UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONAL & ETHICAL REASPONSIBILITY
The requirements outlined in Outcome F are shown below, also noted per ABET’s specifications,
along with the discussed results [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Classroom discussions about professional and ethical responsibility of the aerospace vehicle designer and
technology forecaster.
2. Dedicate one lecture to flight vehicle safety, certification, and incident & accident investigation.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 51 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
3. Reading assignment of selected chapter in Aircraft Safety – Accident Investigations, Analyses &
Applications by S.S. Krause, McGraw-Hill, 2003.
4. Organize a speaker from the FAA to introduce the subject flight safety and certification.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Require an individual report chapter addressing design for safety & reliability. The overall design
methodology needs to contain a concrete approach to design for safety & certification next to design for
mission objectives.
2. The students are required to research and document a project-relevant flight vehicle accident design case
study. From the case study, it is required to take certain lessons learned into account with the safety
methodology devised. Particular emphasis is directed to the discussion of engineering responsibility and the
often fatal consequences in wrongdoing.
3. Document in the individual report how Outcome F does relate to the individual student project’s
responsibility.
During the onset of this year’s capstone course, several discussions were administered by Dr.
Chudoba, the faculty lead of this project. He explained in detail the obligations and ramifications of
adhering to ethical and professional standards set forth by the engineering community. As a member
of UTA, AIAA, and several other professional organizations, this author feels well versed in the
moral, ethical and professional standards expected by ABET.
Flight safety was discussed in detail and included additional self-study assignments mentioned in
the ABET specifications shown above for Outcome F. FAA and military standards were detailed at
great lengths, and included several lecture discussions and individual database build-up of “lessons
learned” from prior aircraft accident investigations. These lessons were at the forefront of all design
decisions.
As a member of the cost and certifications group, this author was responsible to provide all
necessary directives regarding safety, as outlined on FAR 25 and all associative MIL specs, from the
runway lengths, to noise constraints, even up to expected seat and isle specifications. All pertinent
requirements were maintained in this team’s Google-share drive for each member’s convenience.
6.4 OUTCOME G: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY
The requirements outlined in Outcome G are shown below, also noted per ABET’s specifications,
along with the discussed results [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Specify requirements for written reports and oral MS PPT presentations: (a) organization & presentation,
(b) content & originality, (c) practical application and feasibility, (d) addressing the average audience
consisting of the decision-maker, specialist and layman.
2. Individual students receive written bi-weekly report feedback.
3. Three student-faculty contact opportunities per week are utilized to develop the skills of efficient oral
communication and giving MS PPT update presentations.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Grade bi-weekly individual written reports.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 52 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
2. Grade mid-term and final reports. See samples of reports in course exhibit. 3) Grade mid-term and final
team & individual presentation performance: (a) presentation material, and (b) oral presentation skills.
The requirements described above for Outcome G were administered in great detail throughout
this course. The overall course grade per semester was based in successful completion of two oral
presentations (complete with power-point slides), discussing the overall progress and proposals of this
project as well as bi-weekly, mid-term and final written reports, graded based on their merit, validity,
and technical consistency. AIAA format was followed for each report to maintain expected technical
communication standards. Along with biweekly meetings, extended office hours were held by the
course administration, to ensure effective communication was maintained.
6.5 OUTCOME H: UNDERSTAND AND IMPACT OF ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
The requirements outlined in Outcome H are shown below, again, noted per ABET’s
specifications, along with the discussed results [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Dedicate one report chapter to the history of aerospace. Emphasize on the catalyst effect engineering
solutions have on human development in the past, presence and future.
2. Select a pertinent case study discussing the implications of emerging aerospace technologies on the (a)
environment, (b) global and domestic economy, and (c) global and domestic societies and politics.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Grade bi-weekly individual written reports.
2. Grade mid-term and final reports. See samples of reports in course exhibit. 3) Grade mid-term and final
team & individual presentation performance: (a) presentation material, and (b) oral presentation skills.
In accordance to the guidelines set forth in Outcome H, as outlined above, class lectures were held
discussing the historical validity in aerospace design. In fact, this was a fundamental focus in
developing the preliminary sizing of this project. As mentioned earlier, the lessons learned from past
endeavours, were continually revisited in the database and knowledge base build-up developed
throughout this project. The impact of aerospace development for global and societal solutions to
yesterday, today, and tomorrow is evident from the cause-and-effect relationships discussed
throughout this course. These include everything from need-derived technical development project,
as has commonly occurred throughout aerospace history – often birthed from war/national security
related reasons, to the economic and environmental effects of aeronautical transportation, like that
shown within this report detailing space tourism forecasts. Specific case studies were performed on
this basis and also can be seen in the above referenced “Cost Trends” section of this report. The
successful completion of this course included formal grading of these topics in the before mentioned
reports and presentation deliverables.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 53 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
6.6 OUTCOME I: ENGAGE IN LIFELONG LEARNING
The requirements outlined in Outcome I are shown below, once more, noted per ABET’s
specifications, along with the discussed results [21A]:
Plan to accomplish:
1. Require an extensive literature search to be performed during the first weeks of class. The search is
documented in the bi-weekly project reports covering project relevant aspect from the (a) past, the (b)
presence, and the (c) projected future.
2. Require the literature search chapter to discuss the significance of project-relevant past, present and future
design knowledge, and in particular how the design knowledge has been evolving (increasing or
decreasing) over time.
3. Require each individual student to build a disciplinary data-base (DB, like overview tables & figures) and
knowledge-base (KB), like lessons learned, design guideline, trend lines, etc.) overall aimed at retaining,
organizing, and making available relevant design data, information and knowledge.
4. Require each student to utilize and enrich the DB & KB with new information generated throughout the
project. Emphasize the need to engage in lifelong learning in order to efficiently shape future engineering
products.
Plan to demonstrate:
1. Require and grade the particular bi-weekly report as a major part of the course grade aimed at delivering the
primary DB & KB for the project.
2. Require an individual student progress presentation as a major part of the course grade aimed at introducing
the student’s disciplinary DB & KB for the project.
As mentioned previously, formal knowledge-base (KB) and data-base (DB) build-up was
performed at the onset, and continued throughout this project. This included an extensive literature
search of past, current, and future proposals for the space tourism business, as well as associative
aerospace design configurations, performance characteristics, safety and cost comparisons. This data-
base was formed and presented in electronic format to the senior design course administration. Again,
a screen-shot of the formulated data-base can be viewed in Figure 51, of Appendix D. Updates were
submitted on a bi-weekly basis in the formal submitted reports held therein.
These reports included chapters on the literature search progress, its significance to “project-
relevant” design knowledge, and its evolution over time. This search and data-base build-up formed
the knowledge-base necessary to formulate an effective design criteria. Its contents were shown
throughout this report in the form of pertinent trend-line equations, plots, figures and tabulated data to
validate the overall accuracy produced within the project deliverables.
The results mentioned herein prove the accomplishment of Outline I, by reinforcing the need to
build on this foundation of engaging in life-long learning from prior historical lessons learned, current
design configurations, and future technology pushes driven by the ever-changing demand set forth in
the aerospace community. As such, the framework set in this capstone course will continue to enrich
this author’s data-base and knowledge-base driven tool kit.
Again, the successful completion of this capstone course has been accomplished through formal
grading of all before mentioned project deliverables, as outlined throughout the ABET criterion.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 54 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
7 FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL
After several design iterations, a finalized configuration was agreed upon within our Stella Nova
community. A model was then transposed from several chalkboard sketches into a final build
configuration led by the Mr. Hoang Pham, the geometry team’s engineering lead. This model is
shown below in Figure 49, and was birthed from over thirty team meetings, thousands of lines of
sizing code transferred amongst different inter-disciplines within our team, and enough trade-offs to
compile a separate report on them in their entirety. This final design configuration was found to be
the best fit for commercialized space travel because its performance capabilities are versatile enough
to meet both the ATOL and HTHL-SSTO mission requirements without impinging on the primary
missions of merit – customer appeal, safety and cost.
Figure 49. Final Design Configuration. [15A]
7.1 ATOL-SSTO FINAL DESIGN COSTS
After this team completed the derivation set forth for the final analysis, a cost estimate for the air-
launch mission was performed. This estimate was provided based on the weights and performance
characteristics outlined on the following page, in Table 19. The gross driving variables held therein
were given by Mr. Hoger Villegas - Stella Nova team chief [3A]. Based in the tabulated data shown
in Table 19, along with the calibrated correction factor mentioned previously, the RTD&E, O&M and
profit margins were calculated and are shown in Tables 20-22.
A plot of the estimated total cost versus thrust-to-weight ratio was then developed and provided to
the other synthesis members for completion of this team’s performance matching chart. This plot is
shown in Fig. 50. These results can be viewed in their final presentations [3A, 4A].
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 55 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 19. Final Proposed Air Launch Mission Characteristics. [3A]
Mission: ATOL-SSTO
Configuration: C-Delta
Number of Passengers: 6
Number of Developmental Craft: 1
Apogee (ft): 361000
Empty Weight (lbf): 14066
Payload Weight (lbf): 1927
Fuel Weight (lbf): 19856
Take-off Weight (lbf): 35849
Thrust Required (lbf): 50000
Max Mach: 4
Max Speed (mph): 2911
Burn-out Altitude (ft): 176000
Table 20. Estimated Air-Launch Developmental Costs.
Table 21. Estimated Air Launch O&M Costs.
Air Launch O&M Costs
Air Port Terminal Fee $494,502
Carrier Craft $182,616,800
Fuel $1,438,757,000
Flight Support $56,706,000
Taxes $251,786,145
Other Fees $218,214,659
Total O&M Cost $2,148,575,107
Number of Operational Aircraft= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated_Engineering_Hours = 8576400 9602400 10258200 10750800 11149200 11485200 11777400 12036600 12270000 12483000 12678000
Total_Engineering_Costs = $1,137,600,000 $1,273,680,000 $1,360,680,000 $1,426,020,000 $1,478,820,000 $1,523,400,000 $1,562,220,000 $1,596,540,000 $1,627,500,000 $1,655,700,000 $1,681,620,000
Developmental_Support_Cost = $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = $34,023,600 $78,708,000 $128,556,000 $182,088,000 $238,530,000 $297,402,000 $358,386,000 $421,236,000 $485,754,000 $551,802,000 $619,260,000
Tooling_Hours = 2019840 2423760 2696520 2908440 3084240 3235740 3369600 3490080 3599880 3701040 3794940
Tooing_Cost = $289,332,000 $347,190,000 $386,262,000 $416,622,000 $441,804,000 $463,506,000 $482,682,000 $499,932,000 $515,664,000 $530,154,000 $543,606,000
Labor_Hours = 636960 993300 1288140 1549020 1787160 2008740 2217360 2415540 2604960 2786940 2962560
Labor_Cost = $73,086,000 $113,976,000 $147,804,000 $177,732,000 $205,062,000 $230,484,000 $254,418,000 $277,158,000 $298,890,000 $319,776,000 $339,918,000
Quality_Control_Hours = 48411 75492 97902 117726 135828 152664 168522 183582 197976 211806 225150
Quality_Control_Cost = $6,148,200 $9,587,400 $12,433,200 $14,950,800 $17,250,000 $19,388,400 $21,402,000 $23,314,800 $25,143,000 $26,899,800 $28,594,200
Material_Cost = $16,647,600 $28,965,600 $40,047,600 $50,397,000 $60,234,000 $69,678,000 $78,810,000 $87,684,000 $96,336,000 $104,802,000 $113,094,000
Engine_Production_Cost = $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300
Total_Cost = $2,773,200,000 $3,068,460,000 $3,292,140,000 $3,484,140,000 $3,658,080,000 $3,820,260,000 $3,974,280,000 $4,122,240,000 $4,265,700,000 $4,405,500,000 $4,542,480,000
Total_Cost (in bil) = $2.77 $3.07 $3.29 $3.48 $3.66 $3.82 $3.97 $4.12 $4.27 $4.41 $4.54
Price_per_pound = $77,357.16 $85,593.30 $91,832.76 $97,188.51 $102,040.49 $106,564.42 $110,860.74 $114,988.02 $118,989.77 $122,889.43 $126,710.42
Wing Loading (W/S) 40.97062857 81.94125714 122.9118857 163.8825143 204.8531429 245.8237714 286.7944 327.7650286 368.7356571 409.7062857 450.6769143
Price_per_Wing_Load_Pound = $67,687,514.12 $37,447,070.10 $26,784,553.67 $21,259,986.25 $17,857,085.08 $15,540,645.15 $13,857,592.76 $12,576,814.61 $11,568,449.97 $10,752,825.02 $10,079,238.27
ATOL Mission
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 56 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 22. Estimated Total Air-Launch Mission Costs.
Air Launch Mission
Total RTD&E Cost (in billions): $3.07
Total O&M Costs (in billions): $2.15
10% Profit (in billions): $0.52
Total LCC Cost (in billions): $5.74
Cost per Pound: $160,079.52
Ticket Cost Per Seat: $262,042.86
Figure 50. Estimated Total Cost versus T/W ratio for the ATOL Mission.
7.2 HTHL-SSTO FINAL DESIGN COSTS
A cost estimate was also provided for the horizontal launch mission. This estimate was also
provided based on the weights and performance characteristics outlined on the following page, in
Table 23. Again, the gross driving variables held therein were given by Mr. Hoger Villegas - Stella
Nova team chief [3A]. Based in the tabulated data shown in Table 23, along with the calibrated
correction factor mentioned previously, the RTD&E, O&M and profit margins were calculated and
are shown in Tables 24-26.
A plot of the estimated total cost versus thrust-to-weight ratio was also developed and provided to
the other synthesis members for final sizing verification. It can be viewed in Fig. 51. These results
can be viewed in their final presentations [3A, 4A].
y = 3E+06x + 3E+09 R² = 1
$2,773,000,000
$2,773,500,000
$2,774,000,000
$2,774,500,000
$2,775,000,000
$2,775,500,000
$2,776,000,000
1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
Tota
l Co
st
T/W
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 57 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 23. Final Proposed HTHL-SSTO Mission Characteristics. [3A]
Mission: HTHL-SSTO
Configuration: C-Delta
Number of Passangers: 6
Number of Developmental Craft: 1
Apogee (ft): 361000
Empty Weight (lbf): 18260.7
Payload Weight (lbf): 1927.3
Fuel Weight (lbf): 22212
Take-off Weight (lbf): 42400
Thrust Required (lbf): 70000
Max Mach: 3.441
Max Speed (mph): 2571.822
Burn-out Altitude (ft): 141000
Table 24. Estimated HTHL-SSTO Developmental Costs.
Table 25. Estimated HTHL-SSTO O&M Costs.
Horizontal Launch O&M Costs
Space Port Terminal Fee $13,699
PFC Fees $10,403
Fuel $2,158,135,500
Flight Support $55,757,000
Taxes $332,087,490
Other Fees $287,809,158
Total O&M Cost $2,833,799,551
Number of Operational Aircraft= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated_Engineering_Hours = 9404400 3071075 3280900 3438400 3565800 3673425 3766875 3849650 3924375 3992275 4054750
Total_Engineering_Costs = $1,247,400,000 $1,396,620,000 $1,492,080,000 $1,563,660,000 $1,621,620,000 $1,670,520,000 $1,713,000,000 $1,750,740,000 $1,784,640,000 $1,815,600,000 $1,843,980,000
Developmental_Support_Cost = $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = $33,454,200 $77,394,000 $126,402,000 $179,034,000 $234,534,000 $292,422,000 $352,386,000 $414,180,000 $477,618,000 $542,562,000 $608,880,000
Tooling_Hours = 2269800 2723700 3030240 3268380 3465960 3636180 3786600 3921960 4045380 4159020 4264560
Tooing_Cost = $325,140,000 $390,156,000 $434,064,000 $468,180,000 $496,476,000 $520,866,000 $542,412,000 $561,804,000 $579,474,000 $595,758,000 $610,860,000
Labor_Hours = 743160 1158840 1502820 1807140 2085000 2343480 2586900 2818020 3039060 3251400 3456240
Labor_Cost = $85,266,000 $132,966,000 $172,434,000 $207,348,000 $239,232,000 $268,890,000 $296,820,000 $323,346,000 $348,702,000 $373,062,000 $396,564,000
Quality_Control_Hours = 56478 88074 114216 137340 158460 178104 196602 214170 230970 247104 262674
Quality_Control_Cost = $7,173,000 $11,185,200 $14,505,000 $17,442,600 $20,124,600 $22,619,400 $24,968,400 $27,199,800 $29,332,800 $31,382,400 $33,359,400
Material_Cost = $19,605,600 $34,111,800 $47,163,000 $59,350,800 $70,932,000 $82,056,000 $92,814,000 $103,266,000 $113,454,000 $123,420,000 $133,182,000
Engine_Production_Cost = $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560
Total_Cost = $2,940,240,000 $3,264,600,000 $3,508,800,000 $3,717,240,000 $3,905,100,000 $4,079,580,000 $4,244,580,000 $4,402,680,000 $4,555,440,000 $4,703,940,000 $4,849,080,000
Total_Cost (in bil) = $2.94 $3.26 $3.51 $3.72 $3.91 $4.08 $4.24 $4.40 $4.56 $4.70 $4.85
Price_per_pound = $69,345.28 $76,995.28 $82,754.72 $87,670.75 $92,101.42 $96,216.51 $100,108.02 $103,836.79 $107,439.62 $110,941.98 $114,365.09
Wing Loading (W/S) 48.45714286 96.91428571 145.3714286 193.8285714 242.2857143 290.7428571 339.2 387.6571429 436.1142857 484.5714286 533.0285714
Price_per_Wing_Load = $60,677,122.64 $33,685,436.32 $24,136,792.45 $19,177,977.59 $16,117,747.64 $14,031,574.29 $12,513,502.36 $11,357,149.17 $10,445,518.87 $9,707,423.35 $9,097,223.41
HTHL Mission
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 58 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 26. Estimated Total HTHL-SSTO Mission Costs.
Horizontal Launch Mission
Total RTD&E Cost (in billions): $3.26
Total O&M Costs (in billions): $2.83
10% Profit (in billions): $0.61
Total LCC Cost (in billions): $6.71
Cost per Pound: $158,213.20
Ticket Cost Per Seat: $306,312.31
Figure 51. Estimated Total Cost versus T/W ratio for the HTHL-SSTO Mission.
7.3 FINAL CONFIGURATION COMPPARISONS
Since the final configurations were set, and final cost estimates were completed for each mission
requirement, these cost estimates were compared to each other to provide the group the tools
necessary to decide which configuration would be most relevant. The results of these comparisons are
shown below in Fig. 52-55, as well as Tables 27-28, in the following pages. These comparisons
y = 4E+06x + 3E+09 R² = 1
$2,938,000,000
$2,938,500,000
$2,939,000,000
$2,939,500,000
$2,940,000,000
$2,940,500,000
$2,941,000,000
$2,941,500,000
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
Tota
l Co
st
T/W
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 59 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
included the total costs and cost per pound for each mission requirement contrasted against the
number in operation, as well as total cost versus wing loading and overall life-cycle costs. The results
shown herein were provided in our formal final presentation.
Table 27. Total Mission Cost Comparisons.
Total Mission Cost Comparisons
Ground Launch (billions) $6.71
Air Launch (billions) $5.74
Difference (billions) $0.97
Table 28. Proposed Cost Per Seat Comparison for Stella Nova’s Horizon 1. [9A]
Cost Per Seat
Category Stella Nova Competitor Percent Difference
Cost Per Pound $143,981.18 $87,651 64.27%
Cost Per Seat $278,758.08 $250,000 11.50%
Figure 52. Total Cost versus Number of Craft in Operation.
y = 0.3053x + 5.166 R² = 0.9859
y = 0.2834x + 4.8565 R² = 0.9873
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tota
l Co
st (
in b
illio
ns)
Total Craft Built
HTHL
ATOL
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 60 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 53. Total Cost-Per-Pound versus Number of Craft in Operation.
Figure 54. Total Cost versus Wing Loading.
Figure 55. Overall Life-Cycle Costs for the Modified X-15.
Note that all O&M costs associated with this analysis were based in an estimate of one trip per
day, to allow sufficient turnaround time. This also was formulated per Mr. Villega’s recommendation
to operate a single craft during the 10-year operation of this program. Current estimates expect a
break-even point after eight years of operation. These estimates are based on low market popularity,
due to the newness of commercialized space tourism. Optimistic forecasts could lower the break-even
y = -46490ln(x) + 141103 R² = 0.9809
y = -56778ln(x) + 172039 R² = 0.9804
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
$110,000
$120,000
$130,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Co
st/
Lb
Number in Operation
HTHL
ATOL
y = 1E+09x-0.789 R² = 0.9988
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Tota
l Co
st
W/S
HTHL
ATOL
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
To
tal
Co
st
(in
Mil
lio
ns)
Year
RTD&E
O&M
Acquisition
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 61 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
costs even more, if demand improves. The life-cycle cost estimates were derived from the
calculations shown in Table 35, of Appendix H.
8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As part of the final deliverables presented in the formal end of semester presentation, a brochure
was designed by Mr. James Reidel and myself. This brochure is shown below in Fig. 56.
Figure 56. Stella Nova’s Company Brochure.
Mr. Reidel assisted me in providing the cabin layout configuration shown as the centrepiece of
this solicitation to emphasize the fact that our company’s focus in this project is to provide the most
comfortable, state-of-the-art suborbital spacecraft available today. The emphasis is intended to focus
on our strengths, by providing the coolest, safest and elegant vehicle on the market. Our craft cannot
compete with the competitors financially, as our ticket price will likely be $25,000 more than the
leading competitor, which is due to a 40% increase in weight compared to their composite designs.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 62 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Therefore, since we are using a historically proven Inconel-X/titanium structural configuration,
the focus and primary selling point will be the safety-driven. After all, the average space tourism
patron will probably have the financial means to overlook the added cost if the experience surpasses
all other market competitors.
9 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this report has encapsulated the combined efforts on the entire Stella Nova team,
spanning the duration of two separate semesters. This report has showed the team dynamics and inter-
as-well-as multi-disciplinary processes required to effectively size a spacecraft to fir the commercial
space tourism mission requirements. A comparative analysis was provided between our craft and
those competitors currently approaching the space horizon, and a trade study was provided which
validates our preliminary design intent. Should you have any questions or comments, I welcome them
and look forward to a very exciting time sharing in your efforts to reach the stars!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere appreciation goes out to my fellow members of the Stella Nova community. It is through
their continued efforts that this work is successful.
REFERENCES
Synthesis:
[1A] Chudoba, Bernd Dr., MAE 4350 Report Guidelines, Fall, 2014, PDF.
[2A] Chudoba, Bernd Dr., “Design Project: North American X-15 Sub-orbital Derivative
Development”, MAE 4351 Aerospace Vehicle Design II, Spring, 2015, PDF.
[3A] Villegas, Hoger, “Stella Nova Aeronautics: North American X-15 Sub-orbital Derivative
Development”, Senior Design II Capstone Project, Stella Nova Aeronautics, Spring, 2015, PDF.
[4A] Shakya, Suchita, “Modified X-15”, Senior Design II Capstone Project, Stella Nova Aeronautics,
Spring, 2015, PDF.
[5A] Roskam, Jan., “Airplane Design Volume 1 - Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes”, Roskam Aviation
and Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, Kansas, Copyright 1985.
[6A] Jenkins, Dennis R., “X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight”, PDF.
http://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/aero_x15_detail.html#.VDi2elc8RI0
[7A] Jenkins, Dennis R., “Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 Research
Airplane”, PDF. http://history.nasa.gov/monograph18.pdf
[8A] North American Aviation, Inc., “Flight Manual Supplement – USAF Series X-15 Aircraft”, FHB-
23-1-K, Los Angeles Division, Los Angeles, CA, December 29, 1961, (Unclassified).
[9A] Virgin Galactic, “Flight Profile for SS-2”, online. [Accessed February 25, 2015]
http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/our-vehicles/
[10A] XCOR, “Factsheet Lynx Mark I/ Mark II””, online. [Accessed February 25, 2015]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 63 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
http://www.spacexc.com/media/SXC_Agents/SXC_General_Information-
MK1_MK2_Factsheet_2014_XCOR_w.pdf Virgin Galactic, “Flight Profile for SS-2”, online.
[11A] Zero Gravity Corporation, “Zero-G: The Way It Works”, online. [Accessed February 20, 2015]
http://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Experience.How_it_Works
[12A] Bristol Spaceplanes Limited, “Ascender”, online. [Accessed February 22, 2015]
http://bristolspaceplanes.com/projects/ascender/
[13A] EADS Astrium , “Airbus Defence and Space”, online. [Accessed February 22, 2015]
http://www.space-airbusds.com/
[14A] Encyclopedia Astronautica, “Star-raker”, online. [Accessed February 27, 2015]
http://www.space-airbusds.com/
[15A] NASA and Advanced Concepts, “Air Launch: Grand Trade Study”, NASA SpaceFlight.com, PPT,
online. [Accessed March 27, 2015]
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11374.0;attach=38703
[16A] Bergin, Chris, “Dream Chaser Eyes Rides on Under Review Launch System”, NASA
SpaceFlight.com, October 14, 2014, online. [Accessed April, 10, 2015]
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11374.0;attach=38703
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/10/dream-chaser-eyes-rides-with-under-review-
stratolaunch-system/
[17A] Pham, Hoang, “Stella Nova Aeronautics: North American X-15 Sub-orbital Derivative
Development”, Senior Design II Capstone Project, Stella Nova Aeronautics, Spring, 2015, PDF.
[18A] Federal Aviation Administration, “Commercial Space Transportation 2014 Year in Review”,
Federal Aviation Administration – Office of Commercial Space Transportation, February 2015,
PDF. [Accessed April 24, 2015].
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/FAA_Annual_Compendium
_2014.pdf
[19A] Bureau of Transportation and Statistics, “Air Carrier Statistics”, US Department of Transportation,
February 2015, PDF. [Accessed April 24, 2015].
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=110&DB_Name=Air%20Carrier%20Statistics%2
0%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29-%20%20U.S.%20Carriers&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carriers
[20A] ABET Inc., “ABET Accreditation”, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.,
Baltimore, MD, online. [Accessed May 14, 2015].
http://www.abet.org/accreditation/
[21A] Chudoba, Bernd, “Program Educational Objectives (MAE Outcomes; ABET A-K)”, MAE 4350,
ABET Instructions, May 5, 2015, PDF.
[22A] Nagatomo, Makoto, Hanada, Takumi, Naruo, Yoshihiro, and Collins, Patrick, “Study on Airport
Services for Space Tourism”, Proceedings of 6th IS COPS, AAS on press, 1995,online. [Accessed
May 5, 2015].
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/study_on_airport_services_for_space_tourism.shtml
Certification:
[1B] Davis, Mikayla, “Feasibility Study for a Sub-Orbital X-15 Derivative”, Senior Design II Capstone
Project, Stella Nova Aeronautics, Spring, 2015, PDF.
[2B] Title 14 CFR Chapter III — Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 64 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
[3B] FAR PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS, US
Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&n=pt14.1.23&r=PART&ty=
HTML
[4B] FAR PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES, US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed
February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5
[5B] FAR PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES,
US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.25&rgn=div
[6B] FAR PART 26—CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES, US Government Printing Office, online.
[Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.26&rgn=div5
[7B] FAR PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT,
US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.27&rgn=div5
[8B] FAR PART 30— COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, US Government
Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/90-37/pdf/30.pdf
[9B] FAR PART 31— CONTRACT COSTS PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS, US Government
Printing Office. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/FARTOCP31.html
[10B] FAR PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES, US Government
Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5
[11B] FAR PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION, US Government Printing Office. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.36&rgn=div5
[12B] FAR PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, US Government Printing Office, online.
[Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.39&rgn=div5
[13B] FAR PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
[14B] ALTERATION, US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.43&rgn=div5
[15B] FAR PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING, US Government
Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 65 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.45&rgn=div5
[16B] FAR PART 49—RECORDING OF AIRCRAFT TITLES AND SECURITY DOCUMENTS, US
Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.49&rgn=div5
[17B] MIL-STD-1540B—TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR SPACE, PDF.
http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540B_17789/
[18B] MIL-STD-1540C—TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR LAUNCH, UPPER-STAGE AND SPACE
VEHICLES, PDF, online. [Accessed February 2, 2014].
http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540C_11337/
[19B] MIL-STD-1540D—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE: PRODUCT
VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LAUNCH, UPPER-STAGE AND SPACE
VEHICLES, PDF, online. [Accessed February 2, 2014].
http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540D_17788/
[20B] Federal Aviation Administration, “Commercial Space Transportation 2014 Year in Review”,
Federal Aviation Administration – Office of Commercial Space Transportation, February 2015,
PDF, online. [Accessed April 24, 2014].
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/FAA_Annual_Compendium
_2014.pdf
Costs:
[1C] Nicolai, Leland M. and Carichner, Grant E., “Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design:
Volume 1 - Aircraft Design”, AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., Reston, Virginia, Copyright 2010.
[2C] Fox, Bernard, Brancato, Kevin, and Alkire, Brien, “Guidelines and Metrics for Assessing Space
System Cost Estimates”, Technical Report No. TL872.F69 2007, RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, California, Copyright 2008.
[3C] Wilson, H. W., “US National Debate Topic 2011-2013: American Space Exploration and
Development”, The Reference Shelf, Volume 83-No.3, H.W. Wilson Company, New York,
Copyright 2011.
[4C] Gordan, R. M., “The Space Shuttle Program: How NASA Lost Its Way”, Copyright 2008.
[5C] Bolonkin, Alexander A., “New Rocket Space Launch and Flight”, Elsevier Publications,
Copyright 2004, PDF.
[6C] Hunley, J. D., “Prelude to US Space Vehicle Technology”, University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, Copyright 2008.
[7C] “Suborbital Space Tourism Demand Revisited”, Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland, August
24, 2006, Copyright 2006, PDF. [Accessed February, 26, 2015]
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Suborbital_Space_Tourism_Revi
sited_0806.pdf
[8C] Bartolotta, Paula A., Buchen, Elizabeth, Engelund, Walter C., Huebner, Lawrence D., Moses, Paul
L., and Schaffer, Mark, “Horizontal Launch: A Versatile Concept For Assured Space Access”,
Report of the NASA-DARPA Horizontal Launch Study, NASA SP 2011-2015994, PDF.
[9C] Triami Media BV, “Inflation United States 1980”, Inflation.eu Worldwide Inflation Data,
Copyright 2010-2015. [Accessed online March 2, 2015]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 66 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states-
1980.aspx
[10C] Levenson, G. S., Boren, H. E. Jr., Tihansky, D. P., and Timson, F., “Cost-Estimating Relationships
for Aircraft Airframes”, RAND Report No. R-761-PR (Abridged), RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, California, Copyright 1972.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 67 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX A – NOMENCLATURE
Greek Symbols:
α Angle of Attack
β Sideslip Angle
γ Descent Angle
λ CT/CR
γ Specific Weight
θ Climb Angle
μ Friction Coefficient
ρ Air Density
angular velocity
Roman Symbols:
m Mass
p Pressure
q Dynamic Pressure
s Distance
R Range
RD Rate of Descent
S Planform Area
s Distance
T Thrust
T Temperature
V Velocity
W Weight
K Constant
AR Aspect Ratio
C Coefficient
CF Compression Factor
Cs Specific Coefficient
c Chord Length
𝑐̅ Mean Aerodynamic Chord
D Drag
e Oswald’s Efficiency Factor
F Force
FF Form Factor
f Function
f Friction
g Gravitational Acceleration
h Geo-potential Altitude
ɸ Moment of Inertia
IF Integration Factor
K Constant
L Lift
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 68 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
l Length
M Moment
Ma Mach Number
Subscripts:
f Final
i Initial
L Lift
D Drag
P Pressure
M Moment
ϑ Pitch
ψ Yaw
ϕ Roll
S Stall
T Tip
R Root
∞ Freestream
x Along X axis
y Along Y axis
z Along Z axis
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 69 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX B – PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE
Figure 57. Proposed AVD Project Scope. [1B]
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 70 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX C – STELLA NOVA’S TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 29. Recap of Subgroup Responsibilities. [3A, 4A]
MDA Build Up Competition Analysis Stress Analysis Wing Airfoil Analysis
Parametric Sizing Commercial/ Military Opportunity Analysis Loads Aerodynamic Coefficients
Feasibility Study Cost Estimation for Materials and Manufacturing Processes V-n Diagram Lift Curve Slope
Interdisciplinary Integration Payload Price (Per seat or Lb) Materials Drag Polar
Matching Chart/Convergence FAA Space Tourism Regulations Wing Loading Mach Cone Analysis
Mission Requirements Airport or Spaceport Regulations Structural Layout Leading Edge Air Speed and Temp
Mission Profile Flight Testing & Simulation Max Temperature
Simulation Engine Failure Analysis L/D
Mission Profile Emergency Safety Systems
Simulation LLC
Vertical/Horizontal Tail Size Rocket Engine Analysis Rate of Climb
Aerodynamic Control Sizing Jet Engine comparison & Analysis for Horizontal Take off & LandingEndurance
Reaction Control System (low Atmosphere Conditions) Fuel Analysis Range
Stability Derivatives and Plots Fuel System Layout Loitering
Flight Dynamics Analysis Installed Thrust Gliding
Failure Analysis TSFC Balanced Field Length
Neutral Point Fuel Weight Take OFF/ Landing Analysis
ISP Langing Gear Requirements
Angle of Attack at Key points during flight
Required Speed
Atmospheric Conditions
Thrust Required vs. Thrust Available
Flight Envelope
SYNTHESIS
PerformanceStability & Controls Propulsions
AerodynamicStructuresCost/Certification
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 71 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX D – DATA-BASE DEVELOPMENT
Shown below in Figure 58 is a screenshot of the aerospace database development performed by myself, as well as an additional
screenshot, shown in Figure 59, of pertinent data shared within the Stella Nova share drive.
Figure 58. Screenshot of Personal Aerospace Vehicle Design Database.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 72 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Figure 59. Stella Nova Aerospace Vehicle Design Database.
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 73 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX E – MATLAB COST CODE
clc; close all; clear variables;
%%Defining Year y = [2015];
%%Defining Consumer Price Index (CPI) CPI = 1+0.425 %Correction Factor
%%Defining Variables %Weights... Wempty = 14065.82 We1 = [1:20000]; %Empty Weight [lbs] Wp = 1927.292; %Payload Weight [lbs] Wf = 19856.074; %Fuel Weight [lbs] Wto = We1+Wp+Wf %Take-off Weight[lbs]
%Velocity and Max Speed gamma = 1.4; R = 1716; % Gas Constant z0 = 50000; % Initial drop altitude [ft] zf = 361000; % Apogee [ft] zbo = 176000; % Burn out Altitude [ft] T0 = 340.389; % Temperature at drop [deg R]) Tbo = 473.84; % Temperature at burnout [deg R] Tf = 336.5; % Apogee Temp [deg R] Tr = Tbo; %Turbine Inlet Temperature [deg R]
A0=sqrt(gamma*R*T0); % Local speed of sound at drop [ft/s] Abo=sqrt(gamma*R*Tbo); % Local speed of sound at Apogee [ft/s] V0 = 500*1.46667; % Initial drop velocity[mph converted to fps] M0=V0/A0 % Initial Mach No. Mbo = 4; % Burnout Mach No Vbo = Mbo*Abo % Velocity at burnout S = Vbo; % Max Velocity
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 74 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Mmax = Mbo; % Max Mach No.
%%Thrust Tsls = 50000;
%Cumulative Quantity Produced... Q_D = 1; % Number of developed prototype aircraft Q_P = 0; % Number of developed production aircraft Q = Q_D+Q_P; % Cumulative quanity of aircraft produced
Number_Aircraft__Produced = Q
%%Airframe Engineering Costs... E=4.86*(We1.^0.777)*(S^0.894)*(Q^0.163); %Airframe Engineering Hours Estimated_Engineering_Hours = E Eng_Rate = (2.576*y)-5058 %Airframe Engineering Hourly Rate Total_Engineering_Costs = E*Eng_Rate
%%Development Support Costs (DT&E)... D=66*(We1.^0.63)*(S^1.3); %Development Support Costs in 1998 dollars Developmental_Support_Cost = D*CPI %Development Support Costs in 2015 dollars
%%Flight Test Operations... F=1852*(We1.^0.325)*(S^0.822)*(Q^1.21); Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = F*CPI %Flight Test Operational Support Costs in 2015 dollars
%%Tooling Costs... T=5.99*(We1.^0.777)*(S^0.696)*(Q^0.263); Tooling_Hours = T Tooling_Rate = (2.883*y)-5666 Tooing_Cost = T*Tooling_Rate % Tooling Costs in 2015 dollars
%%Manufacturing Labor Costs... L=7.37*(We1.^0.82)*(S^0.484)*(Q^0.641); Labor_Hours = L Manufacturing_Rate = (2.316*y)-4552
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 75 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Labor_Cost = L*Manufacturing_Rate % Manufacturing Rate in 2015 dollars
%%Quality Control Hours... QC = 0.076*(L); %Cargo/Transport Aircraft %QC = 0.13*(L); %Other Aircraft Quality_Control_Hours = QC QC_Rate = (2.60*y)-5112 Quality_Control_Cost = QC*QC_Rate %QC Costs in 2015
%%Manufactured Material and Equipment Costs... M=16.39*(We1.^0.921)*(S^0.621)*(Q^0.799); Material_Cost = M*CPI % Material Costs in 2015
%Engine and Avionics Costs P=2306*((0.043*Tsls)+(243.3*Mmax)+(0.969*Tr)-(2228)); Engine_Production_Cost = P*CPI % Engine and Avionics Costs in 2015
Total_Cost = Total_Engineering_Costs + Developmental_Support_Cost + Flight_Test_Operation_Cost +
Tooing_Cost + Labor_Cost + Quality_Control_Cost + Material_Cost + Engine_Production_Cost
Price_per_pound = Total_Cost/ (We1*Q)
figure plot (We1*.001, Total_Cost*.000000001) xlabel('Empty Weight(1000 lb)') ylabel ('Unit Price ($US billion)') title('Single Craft Design Cost') grid on
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 76 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX F – ORIGINAL X-15 COST ANALYSIS
Table 30. LCC Calculations for the X-15. [7A]
Table 31. Estimated O&M Cost Drivers. [7A]
Air Force % AF Navy % Navy Total High Range (NASA) % NASA Annual Total Today's Cost RTD&E (2015) O&M (2015) Total Cost
1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1956 $8.80 86.44191 $0.50 4.911472 $9.30 $0.88 8.646617 $10.18 $87.86 $48.35 $39.50 $87.86
1957 $18.30 83.17248 $1.80 8.1809 $20.10 $1.90 8.646617 $22.00 $183.72 $126.80 $56.92 $183.72
1958 $39.10 86.69702 $2.10 4.656362 $41.20 $3.90 8.646617 $45.10 $366.21 $259.62 $106.59 $366.21
1959 $36.30 88.90423 $1.00 2.449152 $37.30 $3.53 8.646617 $40.83 $329.50 $209.80 $119.70 $329.50
1960 $13.60 91.35338 $0.00 0 $13.60 $1.29 8.646617 $14.89 $118.06 $52.89 $65.17 $118.06
RTD&E $116.10 87.31381 $5.40 4.039577 $121.50 $11.50 8.646617 $133.00 $1,054.69 $697.46 $387.89 $1,085.34
1961 $13.61 91.35338 $0.00 0 $13.61 $1.29 8.646617 $14.90 $116.97 $46.39 $70.58 $116.97
1962 $20.42 91.35338 $0.00 0 $20.42 $1.93 8.646617 $22.35 $173.66 $68.94 $104.72 $173.66
1963 $27.22 91.35338 $0.00 0 $27.22 $2.58 8.646617 $29.80 $228.57 $82.62 $145.95 $228.57
1964 $28.64 91.35338 $0.00 0 $28.64 $2.71 8.646617 $31.35 $237.32 $71.98 $165.34 $237.32
1965 $31.33 91.35338 $0.00 0 $31.33 $2.97 8.646617 $34.30 $255.54 $62.79 $192.75 $255.54
1966 $15.67 91.35338 $0.00 0 $15.67 $1.48 8.646617 $17.15 $124.17 $18.94 $105.23 $124.17
1967 $8.74 91.35338 $0.00 0 $8.74 $0.83 8.646617 $9.57 $67.28 $4.50 $62.78 $67.28
1968 $6.92 91.35338 $0.00 0 $6.92 $0.66 8.646617 $7.58 $51.09 $1.09 $50.00 $51.09
1969 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O&M $152.56 89.7997 $0.00 $0.00 $152.56 $14.44 8.646617 $167.00 $1,254.58
Total $268.66 89.7997 $5.40 1.553684 $274.06 $25.94 8.646617 $300.00 $2,339.92 $1,752.15 $1,673.11 $3,425.26
Life-Cycle Cost for the X-15 Program
Airframe Cost = 23.5 mil
S&C = $3,234,188 + $119,888
Pressure Suit = $150,000
Ball Nose = $600,000
ACU = 2.7 mil
Engine Cost = 68.373 mil
Ammonia (gal) 140,000 @ $0.28 = $39,200 256,000 @ $0.28 = $71,680
Peroxide (lbs) 261,000 @ $0.60 = $156,600 420,000 @ $0.60 = $252,000
Helium (sfc) 2,400,000 @ $0.02 = $48,000 5,400,000 @ $0.02 = $108,000
Nitrogen (tons) 1,500 @ $15.00 = $22,500 3,500 @ $15.00 = $52,500
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 77 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX G – CALCULATED RESULTS FOR THE ORIGINAL X-15
Table 32. Calculated Costs for the Original X-15 (Nicolai’s Methodology).
Number_Aircraft__Produced = 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 15.00
Eng_Rate = 132.64
Production_Engineering_Hours = 0 687790 1127700 1457900 1724900 1950300 2146300 2320000 2476500 2619000 3190800 3694800
Total_Production_Engineering_Cost = $0 $91,229,000 $149,570,000 $193,370,000 $228,780,000 $258,690,000 $284,680,000 $307,730,000 $328,480,000 $347,380,000 $423,220,000 $490,080,000
Tooling_Rate = $143
Production_Tooling_Hours = 0 306680 513760 674680 808150 923180 1024800 1116300 1199600 1276400 1592700 1881900
Production_Tooling_Costs = $0 $43,930,000 $73,594,000 $96,644,000 $115,760,000 $132,240,000 $146,800,000 $159,900,000 $171,840,000 $182,840,000 $228,140,000 $269,570,000
Manufacturing_Rate = 114.74
Production_Labor_Hours = 0 303180 554030 775970 978630 1167100 1344600 1513200 1674400 1829300 2533100 3273200
Production_Labor_Cost = $0 $34,787,000 $63,569,000 $89,035,000 $112,290,000 $133,920,000 $154,280,000 $173,630,000 $192,120,000 $209,890,000 $290,640,000 $375,570,000
QC_Rate = 127.00
Production_Quality_Control_Hours = 0 23042 42106 58974 74376 88703 102190 115010 127260 139020 192510 248770
Production_Quality_Control_Cost = $0 $2,926,300 $5,347,500 $7,489,700 $9,445,700 $11,265,000 $12,979,000 $14,606,000 $16,161,000 $17,656,000 $24,449,000 $31,593,000
Production_Material_Cost = $0 $9,447,200 $17,947,000 $25,884,000 $33,428,000 $40,673,000 $47,678,000 $54,483,000 $61,120,000 $67,609,000 $98,361,000 $132,640,000
Production_Engine_Cost = $0 $3,632,300 $7,264,700 $10,897,000 $14,529,000 $18,162,000 $21,794,000 $25,426,000 $29,059,000 $32,691,000 $50,853,000 $72,647,000
Production_Avionics_Cost = $0 $133,760 $383,760 $633,760 $883,760 $1,133,800 $1,383,800 $1,633,800 $1,883,800 $2,133,800 $3,383,800 $4,883,800
Number of Developmental SAV Prototypes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Number of Production SAV's: 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 15.00
Production_Engineering_Hours = 5,750,200 6,437,990 6,877,900 7,208,100 7,475,100 7,700,500 7,896,500 8,070,200 8,226,700 8,369,200 8,941,000 9,445,000
Total_Production_Engineering_Cost = $762,700,000 $853,929,000 $912,270,000 $956,070,000 $991,480,000 $1,021,390,000 $1,047,380,000 $1,070,430,000 $1,091,180,000 $1,110,080,000 $1,185,920,000 $1,252,780,000
Production_Tooling_Hours = 1,533,600 1,840,280 2,047,360 2,208,280 2,341,750 2,456,780 2,558,400 2,649,900 2,733,200 2,810,000 3,126,300 3,415,500
Production_Tooling_Costs = $219,680,000 $263,610,000 $293,274,000 $316,324,000 $335,440,000 $351,920,000 $366,480,000 $379,580,000 $391,520,000 $402,520,000 $447,820,000 $489,250,000
Total_Labor_Hours = 541970 845150 1096000 1317900 1520600 1709100 1886600 2055200 2216400 2371200 3075000 3815200
Total_Labor_Cost = $62,186,000 $96,973,000 $125,755,000 $151,221,000 $174,476,000 $196,106,000 $216,466,000 $235,816,000 $254,306,000 $272,076,000 $352,826,000 $437,756,000
Total_Quality_Control_Hours = 41190 64232 83296 100160 115570 129890 143380 156200 168450 180210 233700 289960
Total_Quality_Control_Cost = $5,231,100 $8,157,400 $10,578,600 $12,720,800 $14,676,800 $16,496,100 $18,210,100 $19,837,100 $21,392,100 $22,887,100 $29,680,100 $36,824,100
Total_Material_Cost = $12,768,000 $22,215,200 $30,715,000 $38,652,000 $46,196,000 $53,441,000 $60,446,000 $67,251,000 $73,888,000 $80,377,000 $111,129,000 $145,408,000
Total_Engine_Cost = $3,632,300 $7,264,600 $10,897,000 $14,529,300 $18,161,300 $21,794,300 $25,426,300 $29,058,300 $32,691,300 $36,323,300 $54,485,300 $76,279,300
Total_Avionics_Cost = $366,240 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,040 $1,750,040 $2,000,040 $2,250,040 $2,500,040 $3,750,040 $5,250,040
Total_Cost = $1,066,563,640 $1,252,649,200 $1,384,239,600 $1,490,517,100 $1,581,680,100 $1,662,647,440 $1,736,158,440 $1,803,972,440 $1,867,227,440 $1,926,763,440 $2,185,610,440 $2,443,547,440
Launch_Cost = $0 $72,983,200 $119,656,000 $154,696,000 $183,024,000 $206,952,000 $227,744,000 $246,184,000 $262,784,000 $277,904,000 $338,576,000 $392,064,000
Price_per_pound = $38,223 $23,753 $17,965 $14,740 $12,648 $11,167 $10,054 $9,184 $8,482 $7,901 $8,224 $6,351
Payload_Cost_Per_Pound = $735.05 $456.80 $345.48 $283.46 $243.24 $214.75 $193.35 $176.61 $163.11 $151.94 $158.15 $122.14
$860,199,800 $1,119,046,800 $1,376,983,800
RECAP
$423,953,460 $515,116,460 $596,083,800 $669,594,800 $737,408,800 $800,663,800$317,675,960Total_Production_Cost = $0 $186,085,560
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 78 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX H – FINAL CONFIGURATION CALCULATIONS
Table 33. Calculated Cost Estimates for Both Missions.
Table 34. Cost Per T/W for each Mission.
Number of Operational Aircraft= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated_Engineering_Hours = 9404400 3071075 3280900 3438400 3565800 3673425 3766875 3849650 3924375 3992275 4054750
Total_Engineering_Costs = $1,247,400,000 $1,396,620,000 $1,492,080,000 $1,563,660,000 $1,621,620,000 $1,670,520,000 $1,713,000,000 $1,750,740,000 $1,784,640,000 $1,815,600,000 $1,843,980,000
Developmental_Support_Cost = $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000 $1,218,060,000
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = $33,454,200 $77,394,000 $126,402,000 $179,034,000 $234,534,000 $292,422,000 $352,386,000 $414,180,000 $477,618,000 $542,562,000 $608,880,000
Tooling_Hours = 2269800 2723700 3030240 3268380 3465960 3636180 3786600 3921960 4045380 4159020 4264560
Tooing_Cost = $325,140,000 $390,156,000 $434,064,000 $468,180,000 $496,476,000 $520,866,000 $542,412,000 $561,804,000 $579,474,000 $595,758,000 $610,860,000
Labor_Hours = 743160 1158840 1502820 1807140 2085000 2343480 2586900 2818020 3039060 3251400 3456240
Labor_Cost = $85,266,000 $132,966,000 $172,434,000 $207,348,000 $239,232,000 $268,890,000 $296,820,000 $323,346,000 $348,702,000 $373,062,000 $396,564,000
Quality_Control_Hours = 56478 88074 114216 137340 158460 178104 196602 214170 230970 247104 262674
Quality_Control_Cost = $7,173,000 $11,185,200 $14,505,000 $17,442,600 $20,124,600 $22,619,400 $24,968,400 $27,199,800 $29,332,800 $31,382,400 $33,359,400
Material_Cost = $19,605,600 $34,111,800 $47,163,000 $59,350,800 $70,932,000 $82,056,000 $92,814,000 $103,266,000 $113,454,000 $123,420,000 $133,182,000
Engine_Production_Cost = $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560 $4,147,560
Total_Cost = $2,940,240,000 $3,264,600,000 $3,508,800,000 $3,717,240,000 $3,905,100,000 $4,079,580,000 $4,244,580,000 $4,402,680,000 $4,555,440,000 $4,703,940,000 $4,849,080,000
Total_Cost (in bil) = $2.94 $3.26 $3.51 $3.72 $3.91 $4.08 $4.24 $4.40 $4.56 $4.70 $4.85
Price_per_pound = $69,345.28 $76,995.28 $82,754.72 $87,670.75 $92,101.42 $96,216.51 $100,108.02 $103,836.79 $107,439.62 $110,941.98 $114,365.09
Wing Loading (W/S) 48.45714286 96.91428571 145.3714286 193.8285714 242.2857143 290.7428571 339.2 387.6571429 436.1142857 484.5714286 533.0285714
Price_per_Wing_Load = $60,677,122.64 $33,685,436.32 $24,136,792.45 $19,177,977.59 $16,117,747.64 $14,031,574.29 $12,513,502.36 $11,357,149.17 $10,445,518.87 $9,707,423.35 $9,097,223.41
Number of Operational Aircraft= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated_Engineering_Hours = 8576400 9602400 10258200 10750800 11149200 11485200 11777400 12036600 12270000 12483000 12678000
Total_Engineering_Costs = $1,137,600,000 $1,273,680,000 $1,360,680,000 $1,426,020,000 $1,478,820,000 $1,523,400,000 $1,562,220,000 $1,596,540,000 $1,627,500,000 $1,655,700,000 $1,681,620,000
Developmental_Support_Cost = $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000 $1,213,680,000
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = $34,023,600 $78,708,000 $128,556,000 $182,088,000 $238,530,000 $297,402,000 $358,386,000 $421,236,000 $485,754,000 $551,802,000 $619,260,000
Tooling_Hours = 2019840 2423760 2696520 2908440 3084240 3235740 3369600 3490080 3599880 3701040 3794940
Tooing_Cost = $289,332,000 $347,190,000 $386,262,000 $416,622,000 $441,804,000 $463,506,000 $482,682,000 $499,932,000 $515,664,000 $530,154,000 $543,606,000
Labor_Hours = 636960 993300 1288140 1549020 1787160 2008740 2217360 2415540 2604960 2786940 2962560
Labor_Cost = $73,086,000 $113,976,000 $147,804,000 $177,732,000 $205,062,000 $230,484,000 $254,418,000 $277,158,000 $298,890,000 $319,776,000 $339,918,000
Quality_Control_Hours = 48411 75492 97902 117726 135828 152664 168522 183582 197976 211806 225150
Quality_Control_Cost = $6,148,200 $9,587,400 $12,433,200 $14,950,800 $17,250,000 $19,388,400 $21,402,000 $23,314,800 $25,143,000 $26,899,800 $28,594,200
Material_Cost = $16,647,600 $28,965,600 $40,047,600 $50,397,000 $60,234,000 $69,678,000 $78,810,000 $87,684,000 $96,336,000 $104,802,000 $113,094,000
Engine_Production_Cost = $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300 $2,670,300
Total_Cost = $2,773,200,000 $3,068,460,000 $3,292,140,000 $3,484,140,000 $3,658,080,000 $3,820,260,000 $3,974,280,000 $4,122,240,000 $4,265,700,000 $4,405,500,000 $4,542,480,000
Total_Cost (in bil) = $2.77 $3.07 $3.29 $3.48 $3.66 $3.82 $3.97 $4.12 $4.27 $4.41 $4.54
Price_per_pound = $77,357.16 $85,593.30 $91,832.76 $97,188.51 $102,040.49 $106,564.42 $110,860.74 $114,988.02 $118,989.77 $122,889.43 $126,710.42
Wing Loading (W/S) 40.97062857 81.94125714 122.9118857 163.8825143 204.8531429 245.8237714 286.7944 327.7650286 368.7356571 409.7062857 450.6769143
Price_per_Wing_Load_Pound = $67,687,514.12 $37,447,070.10 $26,784,553.67 $21,259,986.25 $17,857,085.08 $15,540,645.15 $13,857,592.76 $12,576,814.61 $11,568,449.97 $10,752,825.02 $10,079,238.27
ATOL Mission
HTHL Mission
Thrust Total Cost T/W Thrust Total Cost T/W
50000 $2,773,200,000 1.394739044 50000 $2,938,560,000 1.179245283
55000 $2,773,620,000 1.534212949 55000 $2,938,980,000 1.297169811
60000 $2,774,040,000 1.673686853 60000 $2,939,400,000 1.41509434
65000 $2,774,460,000 1.813160758 65000 $2,939,820,000 1.533018868
70000 $2,774,880,000 1.952634662 70000 $2,940,240,000 1.650943396
75000 $2,775,300,000 2.092108566 75000 $2,940,660,000 1.768867925
80000 $2,775,720,000 2.231582471 80000 $2,941,080,000 1.886792453
Avg Cost per T/W: $1,530,178,716 Avg Cost per T/W: $1,917,667,200
Deviation: $3,011,316 Deviation: $3,561,600
ATOL (Corrected) HTHL (Corrected)
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 79 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
Table 35. LCC Calculations for the Final Configuration.
Number of Passangers: 6 RTD&E O&M Total Cost
Number of Developmental Craft: 1 2015 326460000 0 $326,460,000
Apogee (ft): 361000 2016 408075000 0 $408,075,000
Empty Weight (lbf): 18260.7 2017 652920000 0 $652,920,000
Payload Weight (lbf): 1927.3 2018 816150000 0 $816,150,000
Fuel Weight (lbf): 22212 2019 408075000 0 $408,075,000
Take-off Weight (lbf): 42400 2020 326460000 0 $326,460,000
Thrust Required (lbf): 70000 Prototype $2,938,140,000.00 0 $2,938,140,000
Max Mach: 3.441 2021 32646000 $1,983,659.69 $34,629,660
Max Speed (mph): 2571.822 2022 81615000 $12,752,097.98 $94,367,098
Burn-out Altitude (ft): 141000 2023 163230000 $99,182,984.28 $262,412,984
Total RTD&E Cost: 3264600000 2024 48969000 $212,534,966.31 $261,503,966
Total O&M Costs: $2,833,799,550.82 2025 6529.2 $283,379,955.08 $283,386,484
10% Profit: $609,839,955.08 2026 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
Total LCC Cost: $6,708,239,505.90 2027 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
Cost per Pound: $158,213.20 2028 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
Ticket Cost Per Seat: $306,312.31 2029 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
Ticket Cost Per Seat: $7,224,346,844.47 2030 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
2031 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
2032 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
2033 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
2034 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
2035 0 $283,379,955.08 $283,379,955
EOL $326,466,529.20 $3,443,633,214.15 $3,770,099,743
Space Port Terminal Fee $13,699 Total $3,264,606,529.20 $3,443,633,214.15 $6,708,239,743
PFC Fees $10,403
Fuel $2,158,135,500
Flight Support $55,757,000
Taxes $332,087,490
Other Fees $287,809,158
Total O&M Cost $2,833,799,551
Ground Launch Mission
Ground Launch O&M Costs
Life-Cycle Cost for the Horizon
AVD RESEARCH
REPORT
Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015
Page: 80 of 81 Pages Status:
MAE 4350, The University of Texas at Arlington 2014.
APPENDIX I – FUSELAGE COMPARISON CALCULATIONS
Table 36. Calculations for Fuselage Comparisons.
CPI = 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425
Wempty= 14066 14066 14066 14066 14066 14184 14184 14184 14184 14184
Wto = 35849 35849 35849 35849 35849 35967 35967 35967 35967 35967
M0 = 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109 0.8109
Vbo = 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7 4267.7
Number_Aircraft__Produced = 1 2 3 5 10 1 2 3 5 10
Estimated_Engineering_Hours = 8576400 9602400 10258200 11149200 12483000 8632200 9664800 10324800 11221800 12564000
Eng_Rate = 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584 79.584
Total_Engineering_Costs = 1137600000 1273680000 1360680000 1478820000 1655700000 1144980000 1281900000 1369500000 1488420000 1666440000
Developmental_Support_Cost = 1213680000 1213680000 1213680000 1213680000 1213680000 1220100000 1220100000 1220100000 1220100000 1220100000
Flight_Test_Operation_Cost = 34023600 78708000 128556000 238530000 551802000 34116000 78924000 128910000 239172000 553302000
Tooling_Hours = 2019840 2423760 2696520 3084240 3701040 2032980 2439540 2714040 3104280 3725040
Tooling_Rate = 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947 85.947
Tooing_Cost = 289332000 347190000 386262000 441804000 530154000 291216000 349446000 388770000 444672000 533598000
Labor_Hours = 636960 993300 1288140 1787160 2786940 641340 1000140 1296960 1799460 2806080
Manufacturing_Rate = 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844 68.844
Labor_Cost = 73086000 113976000 147804000 205062000 319776000 73590000 114756000 148818000 206466000 321966000
Quality_Control_Hours = 48411 75492 97902 135828 211806 48742.8 76008 98568 136758 213264
QC_Rate = 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2
Quality_Control_Cost = 6148200 9587400 12433200 17250000 26899800 6190200 9653400 12518400 17368200 27084000
Material_Cost = 16647600 28965600 40047600 60234000 104802000 16776000 29188800 40356600 60696000 105606000
Engine_Production_Cost = 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300 2670300
Total_Cost = 2773200000 3068460000 3292140000 3658080000 4405500000 2789640000 3086640000 3311640000 3679560000 4430760000
Total_Cost( in billions)= $2.7732 $3.0685 $3.2921 $3.6581 $4.4055 $2.7896 $3.0866 $3.3116 $3.6796 $4.4308
Price_per_pound = $328,600 $181,790 $130,030 $86,689 $52,201 $327,800 $181,350 $129,710 $86,475 $52,065
Corrected Fuselage Estimates
Wide-Body Slender-body