NUS High School of Mathematics and Science

PER
ARDUA SINGAPORE SPACE CHALLENGE 2010 REPORT
AD ASTRA

Team Name: Per Ardua Ad Astra

Members:

Chia Song Zhi

Jeremias Wong
Le Minh Tu
Nguyen Duy Long
Sanchit Bareja
Tan Je Hon

Mentor:

Mr Wong Chee Leong

Contents
Chapter 1- Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Mission Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4
Additional Customer Requirements for Space trip ............................................................................... 4
Flight Profile .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Unique Design Concept ............................................................................................................................. 5
Airframe Overview ................................................................................................................................ 5
Climb to 100km ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Why did we use an Aerospike? ............................................................................................................. 6
Live Video-Conferencing ....................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2- Design and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 6
Airframe .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Area Ruled Nose Cone ........................................................................................................................... 6
Variable Geometry ................................................................................................................................ 7
Lifting body ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Canards .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Propulsion ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Stage 1 propulsion ............................................................................................................................... 10
Stage 2 propulsion ............................................................................................................................... 11
Reliability of the system based on previous tests carried out ............................................................ 11
Why do we choose the linear Aerospike engine ................................................................................. 12
Other possibilities we considered ....................................................................................................... 13
Payload Mechanism ................................................................................................................................ 14
Interior..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Avionics ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3- Safety Considerations................................................................................................................ 19
Backup plan in case of total failure ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Failure mode analysis .............................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 4- Weight and Cost Breakdown ..................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 5- Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

2
 Critical Mission Requirements ............................................................................................................ 23
Engine Appendix 1.1 ............................................................................................................................ 23
Engine Appendix 1.2 ............................................................................................................................ 24
Aerospike Engine Appendix................................................................................................................. 24
Bibliography ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
References ................................................................................................................................................... 32

3
Chapter 1- Introduction and Background
Introduction
The advent of space age has brought tremendous technological advancements and improved the lives of billions. It’s the
21st Century and man has already step foot on moon at least a 100 times. However, space access to common man is still
very limited although recently, there has been a spike in the number of proposals for space tourism. Among them, we
would like to present one we have thought of ourselves from scratch.

Mission Overview
Our mission has to be capable of reaching 100km, do a free fall for two minutes (in order for the tourists to experience
weightlessness), launch an auxiliary satellite and land back safely at the same base. The two main mission capabilities that
we must be able to perform are firstly, to climb to 100km and secondly to do a free fall as these are the most important
guiding criteria. In our design, we have carefully considered different aspects of the flight and chosen an innovative and
efficient design (named Horus) that aims to minimize “wave” drags by incorporating variable wings. Aiming to maximize the
customers' satisfaction, we have also installed live video conferencing features, which put additional constraints on our
design. The critical mission requirements are reflected in the appendix.

Additional Customer Requirements for Space trip

In addition to the above mentioned technical requirements, the needs of the space tourist were also considered.1 However,
not all needs can be met due to technical constraints. As such, the additional requirements for our group are as follows:

1) To experience weightlessness for a longer time.

2) To maximize viewing area or add more windows.
3) To install equipments like telescope for stargazing.
4) To allow family members to get live video feedback of the flight (both interior to be connected to the customer and
exterior for them to enjoy to the view).

Throughout the designing of the plane, customer satisfaction and safety was kept as a top most priority.

Flight Profile
Our flight profile is straight forward. It consists of a few stages shown below with each stage having a different planform to
optimize flight dynamics.

Phase Description
Stage 1 - Initial Positioning
Preflight Preparation To provide enough power to initiate engine (Engine Control)
Takeoff To take off automatically (Navigation)
Ascent (S1) To monitor the flight characteristics profile (Communications)
Cruise To restart engine in case of engine failure (Emergency System)
Stage 2 - Suborbital Flight
Ascent (S2) To determine and navigate ideal flight path for suborbital transition
(Navigation)
Free Fall To withstand and diverge heat due to reentry (Environment Control)
Stage 3 - Approach & Landing
Approach To navigate flight path for approach (Navigation)
Landing To land in extreme ground and weather conditions (Navigation)
To detect a failed approach and to advice the pilot to abort (Navigation)
Missed Approach To determine the next possible window for landing (Navigation)

4
 Figure 1: Classification of phases of flight

Figure 2: Flight Path Projection

Unique Design Concept

The space plane we modeled consists of three new design features.

1) It is capable of having a wing sweep from 20 to 70 degrees. The main reason for its implementation is to reduce
wave drag caused by the Mach cone at Mach numbers above 1.
2) The second-stage propulsion consists of a single linear aerospike engine with 4 nozzles to provide thrust-vectoring
and altitude compensation allowing the rocket to perform efficiently over all heights.
3) A video-link on board the plane to provide live video conferencing for space tourists to allow the family members to
keep track of the mission from the ground station and allowing them to get at least a glimpse of the space and to
be attached to their family members at all times.

Many other planes were studied before we finalized with these features to implement. Our space plane is heavily
influenced from the X-15, the Russian Sukhois' and Virgin's SpaceShipTwo. Many of the aerodynamic concepts and
materials used were borrowed from past planes to ensure sufficient reliability of the plane.

Airframe Overview
The airframe design revolves around 3 main concepts: wave drag reduction, the lifting-body and variable geometry wing
planform. The nose section is designed as a Sears-Haack body to reduce bow shock and the resulting wave drag. Canards
are used for pitch control and roll control at high speeds (when the wings are swept back). The mid section is tapered at 20
degrees to the direction of flight, and the integrated wing mount allows the wings to be swept to the same angle, keeping
all airframe surfaces within the shock cone formed at the Mach 3 ascent and re-entry speeds. This prevents further shock

5
strong shock waves from forming, reducing wave drag. In addition, the variable geometry wing planform allows the craft to
be capable of high speeds while still maintaining sufficient low-speed lift. Engine nacelles are integrated into the side of the
fuselage to reduce form drag. The underside of the mid-section is ramped to allow the body to provide lift at high speeds.
The aft section of the fuselage merges with the aerospike engine.

Climb to 100km
The main concern regarding the ascent is the plane's thrusting capability and stability. It is not possible to use a single-
propulsion system to achieve this objective, and therefore, we have divided the climb into two stages: from 0 to 15km and
15 to 100km. In the first stage we will be using a conventional jet engine while in the second stage we will use a newly
developed rocket known as the “aerospike rocket”, from Lockheed Martin. For information on the jet engine chosen, refer
to the (jet engine section). For information on the aerospike engine, refer to the (aerospike section).

Why did we use an Aerospike?

The possible candidates for the 2nd stage propulsion were the ramjet, scramjet and other various rockets (hybrid, solid-fuel,
dual-mode or liquid-fuel) and they were chosen based on the thrust they are capable of providing and their level of
technological readiness. The ramjet and scramjet, although attractive choices, do not function in low-air density
environments. Of the remaining rockets, we chose the aerospike rocket as it matched our mission requirements. It has the
capability to do thrust vectoring and hence solving the problem of stability during flight which other rockets are unable to
accomplish.

Live Video-Conferencing
To implement the live video-conferencing feature, we needed to add a video link capability to our avionics system. This was
easily taken care of and smoothly implemented. The video link system has been employed on the space shuttles as well
making it a really reliable system.

Chapter 2- Design and Analysis

Airframe
The design for the airframe has been divided into three broad concepts – area-ruled nose cone, variable geometry and
lifting body. Below, we explain each concept and its implementation in detail.

Area Ruled Nose Cone

Modern aircraft, both military and civilian, generally operate in the transonic flight regime, with airspeeds of about Mach
0.8. At such speeds, the compressibility effects of air become significant, and shock waves begin to form. One such shock
wave forms at the bow of the aircraft, and is known as bow shock. When airflow is incident upon the craft, it is deflected,
and if this deflection is too great, a detached bow shock is formed. If however the deflection is within certain limits, the
bow shock formed remains attached to the aircraft surface.

The detached bow shock greatly increases the drag on the aircraft. For this reason, modern aircraft are all highly
streamlined to reduce the angle of incidence between the surface of the craft and the surrounding airflow in order to
reduce the drag caused by the formation of shock waves (wave drag) including bow shock. This streamlining of the aircraft
is known as the area rule.

Concept
In order to reduce wave drag, the area rule dictates that a body should change cross sectional area as
smoothly as possible. An ideal body that satisfies the area rule is the Sears-Haack Body, which experiences

6
 the minimum possible amount wave drag for a given set of geometrical conditions (i.e. volume, length,
largest cross-sectional area, etc.). The radius of a Sears-Haack Body is given by:

r(x)  Rmax (4x  4x 2 )3/ 4

In our design, a Sears-Haack Body is used for the nose section of the craft to reduce wave drag.

Variable Geometry
Variable Geometry Wing Planforms (colloquially known as swing-wings) have been employed in a number of supersonic
aircraft, such as the F-14 Tomcat, F-111 Aardvark and B-1 Lancer. These aircraft often require high lift at low speeds and
supersonic capability, two traditionally conflicting characteristics. However with the employ of swing-wings, low wing
sweep allows such aircraft to gain adequate lift at low speeds and high wing sweep enables such aircraft to travel at
supersonic speeds without adverse drag.

Concept
Swing-wings benefit our design in two ways.

Firstly, for flights in both high subsonic (transonic) and supersonic regimes, sweeping the wings changes in
the airfoil presented to the airflow, essentially decreasing the thickness to chord ratio. This reduces rate at
which the airflow changes direction, reducing strength of resulting shock waves and thus reducing wave
drag. This allows our craft to fly with less thrust, reducing fuel consumption and hence the resulting weight
of fuel.

Secondly, a shock wave forms at the bow of the aircraft at transonic and supersonic speeds known as bow
shock. This shock wave is formed at an angle to the free stream airflow known as the Mach angle, and is
given by:

 1
  sin 1 
 M 

where M is the Mach number of the surrounding flow. Behind this shock wave, the airflow is subsonic. By
sweeping the wings to keep them behind the shock wave (i.e. swept at the Mach angle), one ensures that
the flow over the wing is subsonic. This eliminates the need for a supercritical airfoil, which has poor low
speed lift characteristics. This allows our craft to perform well both in the supersonic and subsonic flight
regimes, eliminating the need for exceptionally long runways to accommodate high take-off and landing
speeds.

In addition, this allows our craft to operate in high-traffic airspaces at subsonic speed, whilst remaining
capable of attaining the high speeds of rocket flight.

7
Design

Figure 3: Swing-wing mechanism. Several configurations were considered, the final being this space saving design.

Figure 4: Top view of the craft, showing wings at minimum sweep (left) and maximum sweep (right).

Lifting body
Relying on the wings alone for lift would require large wing area, necessitating either extremely long or broad wings. Overly
broad wings (low aspect ratio) are less efficient in subsonic flight and are disfavoured. Overly long wings have problems
with flexure when loaded, which would require the use of highly exotic materials to overcome, increasing production and
maintenance costs. In addition, using such wings would require stronger hydraulics and hinge mechanisms to sweep,
drastically increasing the weight of the swing-wing mechanism.

Design
To overcome this, our craft utilizes a lifting body design to offset the lift demands on the wings. The craft has ramped lower
surface to deflect air at high speeds downwards, providing lift in the manner of a wave-rider. The lifting body also produces
increased drag, due to the induced drag from its lift production, however this is easily overcome with our choice of jet
engines and aerospike engine.

8
 Figure 5: Initial design with non-lifting body. Note the nearly symmetrical pressure distribution.

Figure 6: Revised design with lifting body. Note the asymmetric pressure distribution that provides lift.

Canards
Conventional aircraft utilize tailplanes for pitch control, and in some cases roll control. In such aircraft, a positive pitching
moment is generated by a downward deflection of the tailplanes, which pushes the aft of the aircraft down, adding to the
“weight” of the craft. This is problem is exacerbated if the moment arm of the tailplanes (measured from the centre of
mass) is short, which would require a larger down-force to achieve the same amount of pitch. This larger down-force
translates into a larger speed to compensate for the reduced lift at the high pitch angles during landing and take-off.

In our craft, with the large aerospike engine located at the aft of the craft, the centre of gravity is located far back. This
makes using tailplanes for pitch control highly disadvantageous, as it would greatly increase lift, and hence the speed,
required for take-off and landing.

Canards on the other hand are located at the fore of the aircraft, and generate a positive pitching moment by producing an
upwards force. This contributes to the lift of the craft, reducing the take-off and landing speeds. Furthermore, in our

9
design, the moment arm of the canards much longer than if we had used tailplanes, reducing the amount of force
necessary to produce a given pitching moment, reducing the required area of the control surface.

Feathered Re-entry
Our design is such that the aft of the craft produces a larger drag than the fore of the craft. This is achieved by utilizing the
Sears-Haack Body for the nose to reduce the drag at the fore, and using the swept wings and larger fuselage cross-sectional
area to increase the drag at the aft.

Concept
Feathered re-entry refers to the natural stability of the of the craft on re-entry. This is achieved by increasing the
drag in the aft of the craft in order to control the attitude of the craft in flight, without the need for extensive fly-
by-wire control. This is similar in concept to that of a badminton shuttlecock, which increases the drag in rear to
ensure that the shuttlecock is always pointed in the right direction in flight.

Ramped Air Intakes (Jet)

Ramped air intakes are used in high speed aircraft to maintain the air intake velocity of the jets within operation limits. This
is achieved by restricting the amount of air entering the intake using moveable ramps, and expanding them into a large
cavity, hence slowing the air down. Below is an image of the air intakes we modeled.

Propulsion
Stage 1 propulsion
We decided on the stage 1 propulsion based on a simple criterion. Mainly, it has to be able to provide enough thrust to
accelerate the plane to 300m/s (take-off speed) on a 1829m to 2438m (6000ft to 8000ft) assuming a 13000kg plane and
also be able to overcome the drag at any height. Also, FAA requirements dictate that we need at least 2 engines for take-off
(Reference Engine 1).

At take-off, we need a minimum thrust of 38kN.(Engine Appendix 1.1) However, from the simulation we ran at Mach 0.7,
our total drag was around 80kN (refer to data table 2). As such, the engine must be capable of providing a thrust of 80kN.
From a list of shortlisted engines (Appendix Engine 1.2), we selected the engine based on its capability to sustain flight at all

10
stages below 15km. The total excess thrust we have is around 3kN at the time when the plane experiences the maximum
resistance.

The final engine we decided to use is 2*GE CF34-3A which is capable of providing 82 kN.

Stage 2 propulsion
For the 2nd stage propulsion system of the space plane, we have chosen the RS-2200 VentureStar aerospike Engine which
utilizes a gas generator cycle and liquid oxygen (Oxidizer) and hydrogen (Fuel) as its propellants. Below is an image of the
schematics of the aerospike. The specification of a scaled down version of the engine we planned is shown below. All
calculations can be found in Aerospike Engine Appendix.

2
Figure 7: Schematic of aerospike nozzle (left) and the testing of aerospike (right)

Engine Specificiations
Mass of Engine 1200kg
(dry)
Mass of Fuel 3000kg
Dimensions 3m X 3m (length and width), 4m perpendicular to the surface
Thurst Range Ideal model engine has a set thrust range of 125kN to 441.45kN
Throttle Range 27.5% to 100% of Combustion chamber pressure
(Pratt and Whitney set target to be 125kN to 1250kN, Average thrust reported is 1,914 kN at sea level)
Chamber Pressure 7.68X10^7 X M, where M is the mass rate flow of the engine
Mixture Ratio 1 liquid oxygen : 2 liquid hydrogen
Fuel Consumption 100 kg/s (Maximum thrust) to 27.5 kg/s (Minimum thrust)
Nozzle Area 0.92 metres square
Area Ratio 173
Isp 447.3/s(at vacuum), 381.6/s(at sea level)

Reliability of the system based on previous tests carried out

Its prototype, the XRS-2200 has been extensively tested (14 times) by its developers for a maximum burn time of 250
seconds. During the period in which it was official under development, it had undergone a total number of 73 tests and an
accumulated burn time of over 4000 seconds. Recently, Lockheed Martin has constructed a rocket with an engine similar in
design to the RS-2200 has been tested three times in flight with two successes and one failure.

11
Why do we choose the linear Aerospike engine
We took a look at various propulsion systems and chose the Linear Aerospike to be our engine of choice. We chose this
engine mainly for its increased efficiency over the conventional bell nozzle. A bell nozzle can only be designed to be
efficient at a particular height. Although the aerospike has reduced efficiency over all bell nozzles at the height they are
designed for, the aerospike nozzle’s efficiency exceeds that of the bell nozzle at every other height thus the average
efficiency of aerospike over all heights is higher than bell nozzle. The aerospike is also more streamlined than a
conventional bell nozzle reducing the form drag on the plane.

Figure 8: Comparison of rocket groups

Secondly, the aerospike is designed in such a way that it has thrust vectoring capabilities. This eliminates the need for the
engine to be mounted on a gimbal. This is a reasonable reduction in our weight given the strict weight limit.

3
Figure 9: Demonstration of thrust vectoring capabilities

The aeropike is smaller than a bell nozzle of comparable thrust and the engine can also be housed directly inside the
“spike” of the engine, reducing the materials and resources required to construct and maintain the engine.

12
 4
Figure 10: Aerospike and Bell Nozzle Comparison

Other possibilities we considered

Pulse Detonation Engine

The first alternative we considered was the pulse detonation engine. The engine operates on the by repeatedly detonating
the propellants instead of combusting it. The shock wave generated by the detonation is of greater pressure than the
expansion of gases through ordinary deflagration in a conventional engine, thus allowing it to theoretically operate more
efficiently than a normal engine. Due to the nature of the engine, the detonation is self propagating and thus eliminates the
need for turbo-pumps to maintain the detonation, reducing the effective weight of the engine. However, this engine is
hypothetical and has not been extensively tested or has an existing model used commercially. For most fuels, a certain
intake of air is required for detonation to take place. As our goal is to reach at height of 100 km, the atmosphere at that
height is insufficiently dense to provide enough air to perpetuate the detonation.

Ajak engine (Magneto-Hydro Dynamic generator)

Another hypothetical concept we considered is the Ajak model which had reportedly being tested by Russia. It uses a
particle beam in its nose to ionize the air in front of the plane, creating a field of plasma around the plane which supposedly
reduces drag of the hypersonic aircraft. It uses a MHD (Magneto-hydro dynamic) generator to derive energy from the flow
of plasma. Part of the energy is used to reform the fuel by cracking a heavy hydrocarbon to maximize the energy derived
from the combustion, part of the energy is used to accelerate the flow of the exhaust in the end. As the engine is quite
complex and a large magnetic field is required in order to operate the drive. A huge amount of resources are required for
the construction and maintenance of the engine. Also, the project is shrouded in relative secrecy, thus the reliability of the
engine is questionable. For the above two models, the added complexity in understanding the propulsion system limits our
ability to model the system for our use. Thus, other less complex systems were chosen.

Rocket assisted ramjet/scramjet

The next probability we considered is the (Rocket and fan assisted) ramjet/scramjet engine. These types of engines use
atmospheric pressure to compress or “ram” the air before combusting the fuel. This form of combustion is highly efficient
and it also provides high thrust, with a hypothetical limit of mach 25. One of the major drawbacks of using such an engine is
the high speeds in which it must travel in order to obtain sufficient pressure to compress the gases. Another concern is the
low air density at high altitudes, where there may be insufficient air to compress the fuel for combustion. Lastly, the engine
is ultimately an air-breathing engine, which is largely inapplicable at high altitudes where a sufficient amount air is not
present.

Conventional Rocket Engine

Lastly, we also considered the conventional rocket engine which is largely similar to our choice of the aerospike engine. The
only difference in their design is the nozzle which the former uses the bell nozzle. As mentioned in the above paragraphs,
the aerospike is more efficient than a bell nozzle at all other heights than the height it was designed for. In order to

13
capitalize on the strengths of the conventional rocket engine, a multi-stage engine would be preferable. However, as this is
a RLV (Reusable launch vehicle) using a multi-stage rocket would be inefficient.

Payload Mechanism
We have chosen the ACU 2624 as our payload launch system as it has the capacity to deliver a 10000-kilogram S/C even
with a centre of gravity higher than 5m given modest design of about 4.48m in diameter. The ACU2624 works basically like
a spring pushing the payload out of the space plane and at the same time, releasing the payload using pyrotechnical bolts.
A diagram of the mechanism is shown below.

5
Figure 11: Mechanism of ACU2624

This extends the limit of the size and weight of satellites that our spaceship can bring into orbit and hence allowing for
future uses for our space plane. Extensive test programs including Separation Tests, Random Vibration Test, Static Load
Tests, Release Tests, Static Load Test to Rupture and Friction Tests have been carried out on the ACU 2624 and it has
performed well overall. Furthermore, ACU 2624 has undergone various successful missions. It has been used twice on
Ariane 5 for the launch of PPF/Envisat-1 and XMM in 2000 and in Proton for the launch of INTEGRAL.

Interior

Figure 12: Interior Design of spacecraft

14
Avionics
There are many things that the aircraft avionics system has to do. This can be further subdivided into these categories,
which will be described later.

 Navigation
 Electrical Power
 Engine Control
 Flight Control
 Emergency System
 Environment Control

Communication and Telemetry System

The objectives of the communications and telemetry system are stated below.

 To establish high gain communication with ground stations(s)

 To establish communications with payload and assist in payload deployment
 To provide emergency communications for internal and external problems

Different frequencies have different characteristics that are geared towards different aspects of communications. In
general, the higher the frequency, the more data the signal can carry but the larger the atmospheric attenuation. We have
chosen HF/VHF, S band and X band communications as a basis for the communications due to their characteristics.

Frequency Selection
Frequency Spectrum width Spectrum Characteristics
Band
Ku band 12 – 18 GHz High bandwidth – data rate communications
Severely limited by rain and atmospheric attenuation
X band 8 – 12 GHz Medium-High bandwidth – data rate communications
Suitable for telemetry communications
S band 2 – 4 GHz Medium bandwidth – data rate communications
Suitable for payload communications
UHF 0.3 – 3 GHz Backup data /audio communications
Suitable for backup telemetry communications
VHF 30 – 300 MHz Reliable audio communications, universal reception
Suitable for ATC / Mission Control audio traffic during takeoff/approach
HF 3 – 30 MHz Low data transfer rate, universal reception
Suitable for audio and emergency radio traffic during suborbital flight

A design is of X-band based wide-angle antenna is suggested. According to literature, this antenna is capable of transmitting
data at 1Gb/s experimentally. This will provide for essential for ground monitored, spacecraft controlled payload
deployment, video conferencing capabilities and scientific research. Furthermore, we propose the following telemetry link
budget. Initially, we would also incorporate the S band and HF/VHF band communications using a dish antenna and tuned
antenna wire respectively.

After calculations (appendix), we found out that the carrier to noise (C/N) ratio for HF/VHF communications is lower than
9dB/Hz which is the minimum specification for effective radio communications. Also, we determined that S band
communications could be optimized for uplink communications due to its high uplink C/N ratio.

15
 Downlink
Frequency Uplink band
Type of Data Band Bandwidth (Hz, kbps, Modulation)
Selection (MHz)
(MHz)
Voice S band 2025 – 2050 2075-2100 500 kbps (PSK)
Video Conferencing 10 - 20 Mbps (PSK)
Housekeeping &
X band 8500 -9000 8500 -9500
Mission Critical 50 - 100 Mbps (PSK)
Data
Payload Data S band 2050 - 2075 2100-2120 20 - 30 Mbps (PSK)
Figure __ - Final Communications Budget

Flight Control System

The flight control system for this spacecraft would follow the recommendations for the update of the space shuttle avionics
system. Fail operational/fail safe (FO/FS) system architecture, which deploys 4 systems for redundancy, is utilized. A FO/FS
system will allow the flight control system to be capable of performing the operational mission after 1 failure and the safe
return of the spacecraft after 2 failures. Furthermore, built in test equipments (BITE) will be deployed to ensure the
operational integrity of the equipments and spacecraft.

Data between the various components will be channeled through 3 command data buses (L, C and R), each with its own set
of signal interfaces. A list of common signal interfaces is described in the appendix. The various data buses are responsible
for different areas of the aircraft. (mainly, the left wing, the right wing and the central body)

Figure ___ - Schematic for flight control system

Engine Control System

In the engine control system, parameters are obtained from the data bus and the engine output is managed. The
parameters are described in the appendix. Hydrazine powered auxiliary power unit (APU) manages the activation of the
aerospike engine and the turbofan. This APU provides power to critical components in the case of a power failure and to
start the engines. We based the activation of aerospike and turbofan engines on the space shuttle engine. A mechanical
minimum of 30,000 rpm is required for the starting of the engines. (refer to appendix)

16
Figure ___ - Schematic for engine control system

Hydraulic Systems
For the hydraulic systems, we would be adopting the electro-hydrostatic actuators that are used in many modern aircrafts
due to the low weight and energy requirements of the modules. The hydraulic system is split up into 3 components, namely
the Primary Flight Control, the Secondary Flight Control and the Utility System. The various components are summarized in
the table below.

Primary Flight Secondary Flight

Power Source Utility Systems
Controls Controls
Undercarriage
Rudders Wheelbrakes
Electro-Hydrostatic Flaperons Airbrakes Anti-skid
Electrical System
Actuator (EHA) Carnards Air Intake Ramp Parking Brake
Wing Sweep Parking Brake
Nosewheel Steering
Figure ___ - Hydraulic Circuit Design

Electrical Systems

Power System
The turbofan is used to turn an alternator, which serves as the primary source of power. The system is maintained at 270 V
and 27 V which is the industry standard. Power is regulated in AC and DC to avoid interferences and the systm is protected
from being underpowered by an electrical load management system (ELMS) which manages the power distribution around
the aircraft. A power budget analysis is provided in the appendix.

17
Emergency Power Unit
The other source of power is derived from the various APUs, which are usually also emergency power units (EPUs). We
propose 3 EPUs powered by hydrazine, hydrogen fuel cell and lithium ion polymer to be used to provide electrical power in
case of engine failure. This is because the hydrazine EPU is based on a spontaneous reaction between hydrazine and water
which also provides for a instantaneous high torque for engine start. The batteries are designed to keep the system running
for 15 minutes after power failure.

Electromagnetic Compatibility
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) addresses the categories of electromagnetic emissions. They include electromagnetic
interference (EMI), radio frequency interference (RFI), electrostatic discharge (ESD) and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A
multi prong solution is required to prevent the radiated emissions from critically influencing the systems integrity. (Refer to
appendix)

Electrical Harness Design

The electrical harness system would utilize the various aspects of the electrical system to tackle EMC issues. Firstly, a single
point – multi point ground system will be used. The singe point ground system is used for power distribution while the
multi point ground system is used to facilitate digital signal transfers. Effective EMC is reduced by adequate partitioning and
the separation of noisy and quiet signals. Signal matching will be conducted in driver circuits to prevent noise and
unwanted harmonics. Coaxial cabling will be used for relaying high frequency signals and optical cabling technology will be
implemented to reduce EMC caused and induced by high frequency signals. Lastly, low gauge (large width; below 18 AWG)
wires are to be used to carry signals and for power distribution.

Navigation Systems
There are 4 types of navigation systems that are used in

 Dead Reckoning (INS)

 Radio Navigation (Ground Based Radio, GPS)

18
  Celestial Navigation
 Map-Matching Navigation

We plan to use both dead reckoning and radio navigation as the main forms of navigation as it is the most accurate and has
the highest update frequency. Accurate positioning can be determined using celestial navigation with reference to the
position of the sun, and other objects of interest. To improve the accuracy of the GPS navigation system, we propose a
modification to the current GPS system and the utilization of interferometry of GPS signals.

Materials
Wings-Ti-6Al-4V
Ti-6Al-4V is widely used in the Aerospace for its wings due to its excellent combination of light weight, high strength, high
toughness, and good corrosion resistance especially at cryogenic temperatures.6 Given the high loads that the wings must
hold, the low temperatures that it will encounter during the mission and the tropical weather of Singapore, Ti-6Al-4V is a
suitable choice for the wings of our plane. The cost for Ti-6Al-4V is about $398/kg.7

Canopy- Monolithic Polycarbonate

Monolithic polycarbonate has the similar optical clarity of glass is a lot tougher. Monolithic Polycarbonate is widely used to
make windows for both commercial and military airplanes and as such, we will be using it for the Canopy of our plane as
well.

Fuselage- Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy

Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy possesses high tensile strength, high stiffness, high fracture toughness and good resistance
against corrosion, abrasion and puncture at a relatively low cost.8 It has been used extensively in aerospace engineering,
especially to manufacture load-bearing aerospace structures9 and hence, we have selected it as the material to be used in
building the fuselage. The cost for Carbon Fiber-reinforced epoxy is about $788/kg.

Pivots- Boron Composite

Wing pivots require materials that have very high tensile strength and good resistance against corrosion and abrasion.
Hence, there is a competition between carbon fiber composites and boron fiber composites. Though there are several
types of carbon fiber composites in the market which have tensile modulus or strength exceed that of boron fiber
composites, boron fiber composites, however, have a blend of tensile and compressive properties that no carbon fiber
composites can match and hence, it is a better material to use for the pivots in the wing mount.

Aerospike-Molybdenum
The aerospike nozzle requires a material with an extremely high melting point and strength. Molybdenum was the only
choice of metal to use as it has been widely tested and been used in the nozzles of the Polaris missiles. 10

Chapter 3- Safety Considerations

Failure mode analysis

We applied the FMEA method to the different stages of flight to analyze the potential causes and effects of various
subsystem failures. Failure on the component level was not considered due to the high complexity of the systems. The
results are presented below.

19
Scenario 1: Take-off Scenario 2: Failure before Ascent phase 2

20
 Chapter 4- Weight and Cost Breakdown
Part(s) No. Per Surface Per Unit Density Per Subtotal Material Rounded Per Volume Per Unit Subotal Power
of Unit Thickness Material (kg/m^3) Unit Weight* Cost Cost Cost Consump
Units Surface (m) volume Weight (kg) (SGD/kg)
Area (m^3) (kg)
(m^3)
Airframe

Fueselage
Nose Cone 1 53.57 0.0010 0.05 1620.00 86.78 86.78 graphite 85.00 $950,000.00 $50,891.50 $50,891.50
"Skin" epoxy sheet
Nose Cone 1 8.06 0.0050 0.04 2457.60 99.04 99.04 Monolithic 100.00 $10,170.62 $409.88 $409.88
Canopy Polycarbonate
Nose Cone 1 - - 0.14 4400.00 600.00 Various 100.00 $0.00
Structure
Wing Mount 1 466.66 0.0010 0.30 1620.00 486.00 486.00 graphite 750.00 $950,000.00 $285,000.00 $285,000.00
"Skin" epoxy sheet
Wing Mount 1 - - - - 1800.00 Various 300.00 $0.00
Structure
$0.00
$0.00
Control $0.00
Surfaces
Wings 2 67.89 0.0010 0.07 1620.00 109.99 219.98 graphite 220.00 $950,000.00 $64,499.49 $128,998.97
epoxy sheet
Canards 2 12.07 0.0010 0.01 1620.00 19.55 39.11 graphite 40.00 $950,000.00 $11,466.50 $22,933.00
epoxy sheet
Vertical 1 18.19 0.0010 0.02 1620.00 29.47 29.47 graphite 30.00 $950,000.00 $17,280.50 $17,280.50
Stabiliser epoxy sheet
Wing - - - - - 50.00 50.00 50.00
structures
$0.00
Propulsion

Aerospike
Nozzle 4 1.07 0.0100 0.01 2023.29 21.65 86.60 3D carbon 85.00
fiber in
carbon matrix
Spike 1 22.50 0.0100 0.23 2023.29 455.24 455.24 3D carbon 450.00
fiber in
carbon matrix
Oxidizer 1 - - - - 260.00 260.00 - 260.00
Turbopump
Fuel 1 - - - - 350.00 350.00 - 350.00
Turbopump
Combustion 4 - - 0.00 2023.29 3.00 12.00 3D carbon 15.00
Chambers fiber in
carbon matrix
Miscellaneous(Piping, 50.00 50.00 50.00
valvles, Injectors)

Jets
Jet Engine 2 - - - - 737.09 1474.18 - 1450.00

Avionics
Refer to 1 - - - - 771.00 571.00 - 750.00 $500,000.00
avionics
section
(Chapter 2-

21
Avionics)

Other Body
parts
Wing Mount 4 - - 0.00 2380.00 7.16 28.62 Boron 30.00
Pins Composite
Wing 2 - - - - 100.00 200.00 Boron 200.00
Actuators Composite
Arm
Wing Pistons 2 - - - - 50.00 100.00 Boron 100.00
Composite
Canards 2 - - - - 20.00 40.00 - 40.00
servos
Cabin - - - - - - 200.00 - 200.00
interiors
Payload 1 - - - - 100.00 100.00 - 100.00
launch
mechanism
Landing 1 - - - - 500.00 500.00 - 500.00
Gear
0.00
Fuel 0.00
Jet Fuel - - - - - - 2914.78 2900.00
Liquid - - - - - 176.47 176.47 Liquid 180.00
Hydrogen Hydrogen
Liquid - - - - - 2823.53 2823.53 Liquid Oxgen 2850.00
Oxygen
Inert Gas - - - - - 50.00 50.00 Inert Gas 50.00

Payload 1 - - - - 200.00 200.00 200.00

Humans 2 - - - - 100 200.00 200.00

Total Dry 8038.01 8.038010965 6455.00 Cost $1,005,513.85

Wet 14002.79 14.00279453 12435.00

Chapter 5- Conclusion

22
Appendix
Critical Mission Requirements
The mission critical requirements are as follows (taken from the competition guidelines):

1) The maximum take-off weight of the spaceplane must not exceed 12,500 kg.
2) The lifespan of the spaceplane has to exceed 10 years.
3) The design cost of the spaceplane must not exceed S$500 million over 10 years.
4) The spaceplane must be able to support a minimum of 2 passengers (inclusive of Pilot), or a maximum of 3
passengers (inclusive of Pilot).
5) The spaceplane must sustain a total mission time of no less than 45 mins (+5 mins).
6) The spaceplane must takeoff from a runway length of between 6,000 to 8,000 feet.
7) The spaceplane must attain a minimum altitude of 100km and a maximum altitude ceiling of 102km.
8) The spaceplane must be designed with a payload delivery system to deploy a microsatellite not weighing more than
200kg.
9) The spaceplane must land with at least 1 engine on: Powered landing.
10) The spaceplane is designed to take-off from a commercial airport. Hence considerations of busy civilian/military air
traffic must be taken into account. This might determine the optimum time of departure for the spaceplane.
11) The spaceplane should have a realistic flight profile that includes: a) Take-off, b) Initial Atmospheric Climb, c)
Rocket burn trajectory to suborbital position, d) Re-entry, e) Landing.
12) Maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) of the spaceplane must be able to be carried out by existing MRO players
in Singapore.
13) The spaceplane structure and integrity must be able to sustain the rigors of suborbital flight (e.g. stress patterns,
heat, pressure, radiation etc).

Engine Appendix 1.1

The problem of selecting the first stage engine can be simplified as follows.

1. Thrust required for take-off assuming take-off velocity of 300km/h = 84m/s.

2. Runway length = 6000ft to 8000ft = 1829m to 2438m

Writing our horizontal force equation during take-off,

𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 ,𝑥 = 𝑇𝑡𝑕𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 − 𝑓 = 𝑚𝑎

In this case, m is changing as fuel is being consumed at a variable rate and f is also changing with time as lift changes the
Normal force acting on the wheels. Solving this equation fully is not entirely possible as the exact function to model 𝑚 and
𝑇𝑡𝑕 𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝑓 is not known. However, we can easily get an overestimation by letting 𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 13000𝑘𝑔 and𝑓 = 2
. Solving
the equation with these assumptions,

300𝑘𝑚 84𝑚
𝑣𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = = = 𝑎1 𝑡1 𝑜𝑟 𝑎2 𝑡2
𝑕 𝑠

𝑎1 𝑡12 𝑎2 𝑡22
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 1829 = 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 = 2438 =
2 2

=> 𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑎2 = 1.447 ≈ 1.5 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑎1 = 1.929 ≈ 2.0

Solving for 𝑇𝑡𝑕𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 ,

𝑇𝑡𝑕𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 ,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 37622𝑁 𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑡𝑕𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 50154𝑁

23
Hence, the criterion to select the engine is:

𝑇𝑡𝑕𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 > 38000𝑁

Also, we want the combined weight of the engine and fuel to be as low as possible assuming a 1 hour 15 minutes
operational time. We chose the operation time to be 1 hour 15 minutes as it is a safe estimate of the upper limit of the
engine run time as our actual planned flight requires a run time of only 50 minutes.

However, this is not the only thrust requirement. Through the CFD analysis (data table 2), our maximum drag is 82kN. As
such, our engine must be capable of providing a thrust of 82kN.

Referring to data table 1, the best engine based on fuel consumed and thrust is 2*GE CF34-3A.

Aerospike Engine Appendix

For the modeling of the prospective aerospike engine, several assumptions were made beforehand:

 No energy is lost as heat or through friction throughout the engine.

 Assuming the efficiency of the engine is 0.9.
 The reaction between hydrogen and oxygen is not in equilibrium and is complete, implying that the reaction will
always proceed in one direction and not halfway or backwards. (This prevents the formation of additional
compounds which are difficult to model and account for.)
 The area expansion ratio of the nozzle is 173 (Exit nozzle and aerospike nozzle), which is the same as that of the RS-
2200 engine. (This allows to find the thrust provided by the nozzle without accounting for more of the complex
effects and the size of the flow field.)
 The flow throughout the engine is laminar and no compression waves are formed. (It greatly simplifies calculations
in finding the thrust due to the aerospike’s “Spike”.)
 The expansion of the gas is adiabatic.
 The gas (water) behaves like an ideal gas.
 The two streams of exhaust converge at some distance from the truncated end of the aerospike.

24
1) Engine model (The aerospike engine is circled in red)

25
2) Calculations

Legend:

𝑀𝑒 : Mass rate flow of the engine

𝑅: Gas constant (8.314)

𝑚𝑤 : Molar mass of water (18 g mol−1 )

𝐶𝑝 : Heat capacity of gas at constant pressure of water (2.0785)

9
𝛾: Ratio of heat capacities at constant pressure and volume of water ( )
7

∆𝑓 𝐺 0 : Gibbs free energy for formation of water (228.582 kJ mol−1 )

𝑇𝑐 : Temperature of combustion chamber

𝑇0 : Temperature of reactants before combustion

𝑃𝑐 : Pressure of combustion chamber

𝑃𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 : Pressure at the spike of the aerospike

𝑃𝑡 : Pressure at the throat of the exit nozzle

𝑃𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 : Pressure at the truncated base of the aerospike

𝑃0 : Pressure of reactants before combustion

𝑃𝑒 : Pressure of gas at exhaust

𝑃𝑎 : Ambient pressure

𝜇𝑒 : Exhaust velocity of exit nozzle

𝜇Sound : Speed of sound

𝜇n : Speed of gas at 𝑛𝑡𝑕 part of the engine

𝑀: Mach number of exhaust

𝐴𝑒 : Area of exit nozzle (0.92 𝑚2 )

𝐴𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 : Area of the truncated base

𝐴𝑛 : Cross-sectional area at 𝑛𝑡𝑕 part of the engine

𝐹𝑟 : Thrust

26
 𝑀𝑒 ∆𝑓 𝐺 0 ∗ 1000000
= 𝐶𝑝 𝑀𝑒 (𝑇𝑐 − 𝑇0 )
𝑚𝑤

By assuming no loss in energy,

𝜇𝑒 2 = 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇𝑐 − 𝑇0 )

Resulting in the following expression after taking into consideration that the expansion of as through the nozzle is
adiabatic.

2𝛾 𝑅𝑇𝑐 𝑃𝑒 𝛾 −1
𝜇𝑒 2 = ∗ (1 − ( ) 𝛾 )
𝛾 − 1 𝑚𝑤 𝑃𝑐

Consequently, the expression for the cross sectional area of the nozzle is:
𝑀𝑒
𝐴𝑒 =
2𝛾 𝑚 𝑃 2 𝑃 𝛾 −1
𝑃𝑐 ∗ 𝑤 ∗ ( 𝑒 )𝛾 (1 − ( 𝑒 ) 𝛾 )
𝛾 − 1 𝑅𝑇𝑐 𝑃𝑐 𝑃𝑐

The ratio of the pressure at the throat of the exit nozzle to the combustion chamber pressure is:
𝛾
𝑃𝑡 2 𝛾−1
=
𝑃𝑐 1 + 𝛾

Consolidating everything, the thrust of a general bell nozzle rocket can be expressed as:

𝐹𝑟 = 𝑀𝑒 𝜇𝑒 + 𝐴𝑒 (𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 )

The bell nozzle rocket is most efficient at only one particular height in which it was defined for, where 𝑃𝑒 = 𝑃𝑎 . The thrust
equation for the aerospike model can be expressed through modifying the thrust equation for the bell nozzle rocket, where
θ is the angle the exit nozzle makes with the axis which is normal to the plane made by the truncated base.

𝐹𝑟 = 𝑀𝑒 𝜇𝑒 + 𝐴𝑒 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 cos θ + (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑎 )𝑑𝐴 + (𝑃𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 )𝐴𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒

Centerbody

Of which the base pressure can be approximated by:

𝛾
2 𝛾−1 0.967
𝑃𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 = 𝑃𝑒 (M)( )(0.05 + )
1+𝛾 𝛾−1
1 + 2 𝑀2

Which was determined empirically by Fick, M. and Schmucker, R. H. in their journal entry "Performance Aspects of Plug
Cluster Nozzles" for a circular base, which is used to find the lower limit of thrust by rectangular truncated base. (The
following graphs are assuming the mass rate flow at maximum.)
With the assumption that the flowlines converge the original expression can be written as:
𝛾
2 𝛾−1 0.967
𝐹𝑟 = 𝑀𝑒 𝜇𝑒 + 𝐴𝑒 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 cos θ + (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑎 )𝑑𝐴 + 𝑃𝑒 M( )(0.05 + )𝐴𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒
1+𝛾 𝛾−1
Centerbody 1 + 2 𝑀2

The force on the center-body can be found through calculating the change in momentum of the exhaust gases by the
aerospike. After applying the assumptions stated, the respective thrust for both a bell nozzle designed for maximum
efficiency at 15 𝑘𝑚 and the aerospike can be calculated.

27
As the space plane climbs, the ambient pressure will drop rapidly, causing the aerospike to rapidly outperform the bell
nozzle as can be seen from the graph.

28
Engine cycle

Similar to the SSME, it will also utilize a gas generator cycle for the combustion of the fuel and oxidizer. This cycle was
chosen over the other cycles, the expander cycle, pressure-fed cycle and staged-combustion cycle as it is relatively simpler
compared to the others except the pressure-fed cycle. The pressure- fed cycle would be the simplest and most reliable as it
only involves using inert gas to pump the fuel and oxidant into the combustion chamber. However, one large drawback
would be that the pressure of the inert gas has to exceed the pressure of the combustion chamber which would be
immense, limiting the use of this cycle to propellants which generate a low combustion chamber pressure. Due to the
expected high combustion chamber pressures of the propellants used (Hydrogen and Oxygen), this cycle was not selected.

Among the others, the gas generator cycle is the only open cycle, which means that it discharges some form of working
fluid (Combustion product) is discharged overboard. Both the expander and staged combustion cycle are more efficient
than the gas generator cycle as they do not dump any propellant overboard, making the engine more efficient. However,
there is a theoretical limit to how much thrust an expander cycle engine can provide caused by the geometrical constraint
of the nozzle as it uses waste heat from the nozzle to power the turbine. Open cycle engines are less complicated than
closed engine cycles as it does not have to deal with the pressure when ejecting the working fluid into the combustion
chamber, allowing the use of thinner combustion chambers and eliminating the need for more elaborate piping to deal
with the hot fluid, resulting in an engine which is lighter compared to that if other engine cycles were used. This is an
important consideration given the strict weight limit which was set.

a) b)

c) d)

Diagrams of engine cycles. a) Gas generator cycle, b)Staged-combustion cycle, c) Expander cycle, d) Pressure-fed
cycle. Taken from http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/03_sidebar3.html

29
Composition of engine

As this is an engine which utilizes oxygen and hydrogen as its oxidizer and fuel respectively, it would be safest to use parts
of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) as components of the engine as it has already been tested and used in real space
missions. The SSME is similar to our engine as it also utilizes a Hydrogen and Oxygen engine, thus its components have been
designed specifically for the combustion. Other than the aerospike’s “Spike”, the interior of the engine would be relatively
similar to the interior of the SSME. Thus, using the components from the SSME would ensure the reliability of the engine
combustion process. In addition, parts from the SSME can be obtained from NASA as the space shuttle program is due to be
cancelled in 2010 with the completion of the International Space Station at a reduced cost, eliminating the need to
outsource the manufacturing of components as they can be obtained directly from NASA.

a) b)
a) Rough sketch of Aerospike engine not including details. b) Rough 3D model of aerospike engine.

The engine consists of the following components:

(1) Combustion chamber / Igniter

There are four combustion chambers in the entire engine, each connected to a nozzle. As the combustion of hydrogen and
oxygen is highly exothermic, the combustion chamber is required to withstand both high pressures and temperatures. The
combustion chamber is modeled after the combustion found in the Booster stage for the H − II launcher developed by
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Characteristic chamber length: 0.77671 𝑚) as it also utilizes Hydrogen and oxygen as its
propellants to ensure sufficient volume (Total chamber volume: 0.0427 m3 ) for the fuel and oxidizer to sufficiently mix in
order for a smooth combustion to occur. The igniter is connected to the fuel injector.

(2) Piping

Similar to the combustion chamber, it would have to carry gases at very high temperatures and pressures.

(3) Valves (For thrust vectoring and controlling irregularities in flow)

(4) Injector

(5) Turbine / Preburner

(6) Turbopump (s)

The above components are adapted from the SSME. Refer to “SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE: THE FIRST TEN YEARS”, by
Robert E. Biggs for more details.
(7) Nozzle

30
Due to the design of the aircraft, a total exit nozzle area of 0.92 m2 was used to obtain a high exhaust velocity of the
propellants.

8) Aerospike Ramp

As the physical specifications of the aerospike were not released, an aerospike was approximately optimized by modeling
an arc from the nozzle to the end of the ramp to prevent any one point from being heated more than other points.

Graph of the curvature of “Spike” at full length, the straight line indicates where the “Spike” is truncated.

Simulation of Aerospike during burn.

Thrust vectoring

Through the use of valves, the cross-sectional area of certain pipes can be restricted or altered. By assuming that mass rate
flow is conserved and the thrust from each nozzle is directly proportional to the amount of fuel and oxidant it receives, the
thrust vectoring capability of the engine can be estimated:

𝐴1 𝜇1 = 𝐴2 𝜇2

Torque for roll and yaw axis: 0.75 × 𝑀𝑒 𝜇𝑒 + 𝐴𝑒 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 Sin θ

Maximum value: 97900 N m

Torque for pitch axis: 7.83 × 𝑀𝑒 𝜇𝑒 + 𝐴𝑒 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 Sin θ

Maximum Value: 1022100 N m

31
 Engine material

List of available material for engine material:

ATJ Modern Pyrolytic Three-dimensional Carbon Cloth Silica Cloth

Graphite Graphite Carbon Fibers in a Phenolic Phenolic
Carbon Matrix
Density (kg m−3 ) 1539.00244 2186.7121 1716.15 to 1992.95 1467.0347 1716.1538

Thermal Conductivity 49.84512 2.0353424 0.830753 to 8.7229 91.3828 45.6914

(W m−1 ℉)
Thermal Expansion (m ℉−1 ) 0.000127 to 0.000036576 2.54 × 10−8 to 2.03708 1.9304
0.0001778 2.286 × 10−7 × 10−7 × 10−7
Modulus of elasticity (psi) 1.5 × 106 4.5 × 106 35 to 80 × 106 2.86 × 10−6 3.17 × 10−6
Shear Modulus (psi) - 2 × 105 - 8.1 × 105 8 × 105
Erosion Rate (m s −1 ) 0.0001016 to 0.0000254 to 0.0000127 to 0.000127 to 0.00025 to
0.0001524 0.0000508 0.0000254 0.000254 0.000508

The material chosen for the composition of the engine are the Three-dimensional Carbon Fibers in a Carbon Matrix as it has
the lowest erosion rate, reasonable density low thermal conductivity and high modulus of elasticity. The low erosion rate
increases the operational lifespan of the engine and given the strict weight limit, having a low density and strength of
material are important criterion in the selection of the material. The low thermal expansion allows the engine to retain its
shape and geometry under high temperatures, reducing the changes in thrust during burn time. Lastly, the low thermal
conductivity lowers the heat lost through conduction, allow a more efficient transfer of energy.

Data Tables
Data Table 1 (jet engines)
Manufacturer Model Application(s) Thrust SFC Fan Length Width/ Dry Fuel Weight Weight of Total Total
engine
(dry) (dry) Diameter Diameter Weight Required 2*engine Weight Weight

[lbf] [lb/lbf [in] [in] [in] [lb] [lb] [lb] [lb] [kg]
hr]
GE CF34- Challenger 601-1A 8,650 0.36 44 103 49 1,625 6480 3250 9730 4413.45376
1A
GE CF34-3A Challenger 601-3A 9,220 0.357 44 103 49 1,625 6426 3250 9676 4388.959772
GE CF34- CRJ100/200 9,220 0.357 44 103 49 1,655 6426 3310 9736 4416.175314
3A1
GE CF34- CRJ100/200, 9,220 0.346 44 103 49 1,670 6228 3340 9568 4339.971796
3B Challenger 604,
Challenger 800
GE CF34- CRJ100/200 9,220 0.346 44 103 49 1,670 6228 3340 9568 4339.971796
3B1 /200ER/200LR,
Challenger 604,
Challenger 800
Rolls-Royce Spey Jr. F28 Mk.1000/ 9,850 0.75 32.5 97 2,257 13500 4514 18014 8171.012953
RB.183- Mk.1000C/
2 Mk.2000
Mk.555-
15

32
References

Every effort is made to identify the source of the information. All images and diagrams that are not referenced are self
generated.

1
Webber, D. (2006). Designing the Orbital Space Tourism Experience. Space Technology and Applications International Forum (pp. 1041-
1048). American Institute of Physics.
2
http://green.myninjaplease.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/twin_linear_aerospike.jpg
3
Adapted from Rocketdyne, 1999
4 th
Adapted from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/x33.shtml, assessed 29 April 2010
5
Image taken from: Proceedings of a European Conference held at Braunschweig, Germany, 4-6 November 1998. Paris: European Space
Agency (ESA), ESA-SP, Vol. 428, 1999, ISBN: 9290927127., p.136 and 138
6 rd
Adapted from http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP64, assessed 23 March 2010
7
Adapted from http://www.arcam.com/CommonResources/Files/www.arcam.com/Documents/EBM%20Materi als/Arcam-Ti6Al4V-
th
Titanium-Alloy.pdf, assessed 25 March 2010
8 th
Adapted from http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=polymer_matrix_composites_introduction , assessed 8 February
2010
9 rd
Adapted from http://www.solarnavigator.net/composites/glass_fibre_reinforced_plastic.htm, assessed 23 March 2010
10 th
Adapted from http://www.springerlink.com/content/p01l414425423565/fulltext.pdf?page=1, assessed 25 April 2010

33