horizon i -sna- s.shakya

STELLA NOVA

AERONAUTICS

Suchita Shakya – Project Manager

Sizing Engineer

Systems Engineer for Landing Gear

CAPSTONE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT 2014-2015 MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING PRORGRAMUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARLINGTON

Woolf Hall

500 W. First street

Arlington, TX 76012

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF

HORIZON I

The future of commercial suborbital flight!

Stella Nova Aeronautics- Conceptual Design – Horizon I

2

INTER DISCIPLINARY FLOW CHART FOR

SIZING

Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

3

WING PLANFORM AND AIRFRAME

4

Trapezoidal Vs. Double Delta

Wide Body Vs Slender Body

• 18 m long and 2.5 m wide – Wide

body

• 18.75 m long and 2.0 m wide –

Slender body


FINAL AIRFRAME

5


ROSKAM’S METHOD WEIGHT

First Estimation

Take off Weight= 45000 lbs.

Empty weight = 22500 lbs.

Payload weight = 1800 lbs.

Weight of Fuel = 20700 lbs.

Second Estimation

Take off Weight = 43000 lbs.

Empty Weight = 21500 lbs.

Payload weight = 1800 lbs.

Weight of Fuel = 19700 lbs.

6

Error Percentage

Weight = 3.8 % [Geometry& Weight ]

Comparison made

with Geometry

and Weight Team


WING SIZING –ROSKAM’S METHOD

7

• Initial total take off weight 45000 lbs. & Roskam’s historical data for

Military Fighters

• Varying the power off stall speed wing size is estimated and

compared with calculation done with data from historical data base


CL max-1.2 C Lmax - 1.6 CL Max-1.8

Vstall wing area wing area wing area

102.00 3032.84 2274.63 2021.90

137.56 1667.61 1250.71 1111.74

173.11 1052.93 789.71 701.95

208.66 724.68 543.54 483.12

244.22 529.03 396.77 352.69

279.78 403.11 302.33 268.74

315.33 317.33 238.00 211.55

350.89 256.28 192.21 170.85

386.44 211.29 158.47 140.86

422.00 177.18 132.89 118.12

First Iteration Second Iteration

CL max-1.4 C Lmax - 1.6 CL Max-1.8

Vstall wing area wing area wing area

102.00 2898.05 2484.04 2173.53

118.84 2134.84 1829.86 1601.13

135.68 1637.75 1403.78 1228.312

152.53 1296.03 1110.88 972.026

169.37 1051.09 900.93 788.320

186.21 869.55 745.33 652.16

203.05 731.28 626.81 548.46

219.89 623.55 534.47 467.66

236.74 537.99 461.13 403.49

253.58 468.89 401.91 351.67

SIZING TO TAKE OFF

𝑺𝑻𝒐𝒇𝒍 = 𝟑𝟕. 𝟓(𝑾/𝑺)/{𝝈𝑪𝑳 𝑴𝒂𝒙 (𝑻/𝑾)} = [820 ft -10000 ft]

Assumption Made – Fuel Burned is very small

It depends heavily on the Take-off weight, Velocity at take off T/W ratio, Pilot Technique

𝑺𝑻𝒐𝒇𝒍 < 6000 ft (MinRunway length of major commercial airports) 8

[Courtesy of DAR Corporation]


SIZING TO LAND

𝑺𝑳 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟎𝟒𝟐 𝑽𝑺𝟐 ≈ 4235 ft

Depends on the stall speed at landing = 118 kts. approximately

9

*Darcorporation


SIZING TO CLIMB

Must reach the altitude of 324000 ft to meet the Mission Requirement

Powered Climb must reach minimum of 125000 ft

(based on X-15 climb rate 1000 fps)

𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒃 =𝒉𝒂𝒃𝒔

𝒕𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒃×

𝟏

𝒍𝒏 𝟏− 𝒉 𝒉 𝒂𝒃𝒔

≈1084 ft/s

Error = 18.8 % [Comparison with performance data]

10


GUIDELINES USED FOR FAA CLEARANCE

& SAFETY

11

FAA-AST (Office of Commercial Space Tourism)

MIL-F-8785C

Stability and Controllability Requirements

MIL-A-8861B

Structural/Load Requirements


STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

12

MIL-A-8861B

Maximum Load Limit: 7.50

V-n diagram from Specifications

Maneuver Speed: Falls inside V-n diagram

FAA-AST

Cabin Pressure: 19.5-23.1 kPa

Pressure Vessel Safety Factor: 1.5

Structural Glass Safety Factor: 3.0


STABILITY REQUIREMENTS

13

MIL-F-8785C

Lateral wind for takeoff and landing: 30 knots

FAA-AST

Aircraft must be ‘controllable’

• 𝑪𝒎𝜶< 𝟎

• 𝑪𝒏𝜷 > 𝟎

• 𝑪𝒍𝜷 < 𝟎

Can Horizon I meet all of the

Parameters ?


MATCHING OF ALL SIZING PARAMETERS

Does Horizon meet all the

requirement? YES

Is there a solution space for these kind

of spacecraft to exist ? YES

140

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Thru

st t

o W

eig

ht

(l

bs/

lbs)

Wing Loading (lbs/ft^2)

Sizing Chart at Take-off with Max.

Lift Co-efficient of 1.4

Take off- Field Length

Landing Distance

Rate of Climb

Horizon

Stella Nova Aeronautics – Conceptual Design – Horizon I

Final Performance :𝑺𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 < 𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒐𝒇𝒇

𝑺𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝟒𝟖𝟎𝟎𝒇𝒕 < 𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝑳𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈

ROC = 1084 ft/s

Error: 18.8%

LANDING GEAR -SYSTEM

15Performance – D. O’Donoghue, J. Faure, S.Shakya

LANDING GEAR

Landing Gear supports the weight of entire aircraft

Hence it needs to be sized/designed properly

Tri-Cycle and retractable type of landing Gear was chosen

More stable due to location of Main Gear

High Visibility, easier Maneuvering

Aerodynamically efficient allowing for faster acceleration

Main Gear: 85-90 % load

Nose Gear : 10-15% of load

16Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure

Courtesy Of aerospace.web

LOAD CARRIED BY GEARS- Raymer’s Method

- 𝑴𝒂𝒙 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏 = 𝟏𝟗𝟏𝟗𝟐 𝒍𝒃

- 𝑴𝒂𝒙 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒔𝒆 = 𝟖𝟒𝟗𝟔 𝒍𝒃

- 𝑴𝒊𝒏 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒔𝒆 = 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟒 𝒍𝒃 ; 𝑫𝒚𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒄 𝑩𝒓𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 =𝟏𝟖𝟏𝟕𝟒 𝒍𝒃

17

Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure

PLACEMENT AND TIRE SIZE

Ideal Placement in Horizon I

Main wheel – 46 ft from nose

Nose wheel – 5ft from nose

Tire size was mainly decided based on the load it had to carry

Rapid estimation method by Raymer

Main Wheel Dimension = 29 x 7.2 in

Nose Wheel Dimension = 23.2 x 5.76 in

But taking available tire sizes in market (Michelin), runway condition and maximum speed during take off and landing

Main wheel Dimension available = 26 x 8.0 in

Nose Wheel Dimension available= 24 x 8.0 in


Courtesy Of Faa.gov

STRUT SIZE AND LAYOUT

REQUIREMENTS

Oleo- Pneumatic type of strut

Length of Strut – 5.9 ft

Total Length of Main Gear – 7ft

Satisfies the Layout criteria

Tip over angle - 𝛼𝑡𝑖𝑝 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1𝑀𝐿𝐺 −𝐶𝐺

𝐻𝐶𝐺= 32.15°

Maximum rotation (take off) 𝛾 = 90° − 𝑡𝑎𝑛−160−𝑀𝐿𝐺

𝐻𝐶𝐺= 26.7°


Courtesy Of Faa.gov

HORIZON I

THE BEST AND SAFEST OPTION

Feathering mechanism

Complex

Unreliable

Composites

New material

Not fully understood

Hybrid rocket Engine

New development

Complex

20

Small Aircraft

Not best passenger experience

Geared towards experiments and research

Composites

New material

Not fully understood

Rocket Engine

New development

Unproven

Best commercial space flight experience

Safety minded

Spacious and luxurious cabin

Standard Materials

Years of knowledge and use

Safe and reliable

Rocket Engine

Proven rocket engine

Safe and reliable

Stella Nova Aeronautics – Conceptual Design – Horizon I

*VirginGalactic.com *XCOR.com

21

About Stella Nova

Our goal is to provide our

customers with a suborbital space

experience unmatched by

anyone…ever!

Next Gen. Instrumentation

Cost & Performance

Cost:

Performance:

• We would like to thank all the

members of the UTA-MAE

department for their

unwavered support.

• Special thanks to the UTA’s MAE-

AVD group led by

Dr. Bernd Chudoba.

Their guidance has

aided us in the endless

pursuit of perfection!

Fuselage Comfort

Ours:

Theirs:

University of Texas at Arlington Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Aerospace Vehicle Design 701 S. Neederman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019

817-272-2561

Safety Minded

• Proven component and material

design exceeding ASTM and NIST

standards

• Certified Compliance to FAA-AST

and Mil-STD-1540D

Special Thanks

Craft Company Ticket Price

Horizon Stella Nova $306,000

Space Ship Two Virgin Galactic $250,000

Rocketplane XP Rocketplane Kistler $250,000

EADS Astrium Airbus Space and Defense $225,000

Lynx II XCOR Aerospace $100,000

Ascender Bristol Spaceplanes $10,000

Boeing 727-200 Boeing $5,000

Cost Per Seat

STELLA NOVA BROCHUREState of the Art Design

Stella Nova Aeronautics- Conceptual Design – Horizon I

horizon i -sna- s.shakya

Documents

weight of fuel

weight team synthesis

payload weight

sizing synthesis

roskams method weight

geometry weight comparison

error percentage weight

wing planform