aerospace vehicle design capstone report - x-15

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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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


Status:


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:


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



4. Task project teams to produce (a) team/individual weekly update presentation(s), (b) biweekly individual

project report.


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



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.


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.


1. Grade bi-weekly individual written reports.

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



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.


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



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.


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



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



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



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



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


Taxes $332,087,490

Other Fees $287,809,158

Total O&M Cost $2,833,799,551






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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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]

http://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/aero_x15_detail.html%23.VDi2elc8RI0

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph18.pdf

http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/our-vehicles/

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



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]


[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://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/

http://www.spacexc.com/media/SXC_Agents/SXC_General_Information-MK1_MK2_Factsheet_2014_XCOR_w.pdf%20Virgin%20Galactic,

http://www.spacexc.com/media/SXC_Agents/SXC_General_Information-MK1_MK2_Factsheet_2014_XCOR_w.pdf%20Virgin%20Galactic,

http://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Experience.How_it_Works

http://bristolspaceplanes.com/projects/ascender/





http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/10/dream-chaser-eyes-rides-with-under-review-stratolaunch-system/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/10/dream-chaser-eyes-rides-with-under-review-stratolaunch-system/

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2014.pdf


http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=110&DB_Name=Air%20Carrier%20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29-%20%20U.S.%20Carriers&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carriers

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=110&DB_Name=Air%20Carrier%20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29-%20%20U.S.%20Carriers&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carriers

http://www.abet.org/accreditation/

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/study_on_airport_services_for_space_tourism.shtml

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



[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].


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].



[7B] FAR PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT,

US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].



[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




[11B] FAR PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS

CERTIFICATION, US Government Printing Office. [Accessed February 2, 2011].



[12B] FAR PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, US Government Printing Office, online.

[Accessed February 2, 2011].



[13B] FAR PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND

[14B] ALTERATION, US Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].



[15B] FAR PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING, US Government


http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&n=pt14.1.23&r=PART&ty=HTML




http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.33&rgn=div5


http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.25&rgn=div

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b87189e67153083f0a5f4f2c1ce1c6c&node=pt14.1.25&rgn=div





http://www.acquisition.gov/far/90-37/pdf/30.pdf

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/FARTOCP31.html









AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015





[16B] FAR PART 49—RECORDING OF AIRCRAFT TITLES AND SECURITY DOCUMENTS, US

Government Printing Office, online. [Accessed February 2, 2011].



[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]





http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540B_17789/

http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540C_11337/

http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1540D_17788/



http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Suborbital_Space_Tourism_Revisited_0806.pdf

http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Suborbital_Space_Tourism_Revisited_0806.pdf

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



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.

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states-1980.aspx

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states-1980.aspx

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



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



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



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



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



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



Figure 59. Stella Nova Aerospace Vehicle Design Database.

AVD RESEARCH

REPORT

Ref.: MAE 4350-001/002-2014 Date: 18. Jun. 2015



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



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



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



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



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



APPENDIX H – FINAL CONFIGURATION CALCULATIONS

Table 33. Calculated Cost Estimates for Both Missions.

Table 34. Cost Per T/W for each Mission.






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



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


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






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



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


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



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


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



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

aerospace vehicle design capstone report - x-15

Documents