In this paper, a design optimization and parameter analysis of a horizontal takeoff horizontal landing (HTHL) suborbital spaceplane propelled by a hybrid rocket motor (HRM) is proposed. Referenced by a prototype, an integrated design model, including the mass and shape estimation, HRM design, aerodynamic calculation, and trajectory simulation, is established. A series of long burning experimental tests in the reference article is adopted to modify the influence of nozzle erosion on HRM. After modification, the results of HRM design are well fitted with the test ones, which verified the precision of the modified model and revealed the importance of erosion effect on HRM performance. Then, the integrated design process is built and optimized by the multi-island genetic algorithm. The results indicated that the designed HRM-propelled suborbital spaceplane could achieve the target flight height under all the constraints. The parameter analysis (PA) based on optimum result is adopted to analyze the influences of design variables on the performance parameters of the HTHL suborbital spaceplane, and it also gives theoretical reference to the design optimization of the similar aerospace vehicles.
PeltonJN. The international challenges of regulation of commercial space flight. 1st ed.Elsevier Inc., 2010. ISBN 9781856177528. DOI:10.1016/B978-1-85617-752-8.10023-6.
2.
BentleyMA. Spaceplanes at the spaceport. In: Spaceplanes. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2009, pp. 183–195. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-76510-5_12.
3.
SippelM. Spaceliner technical progress and mission definition. In: 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2015, p. 3582.
4.
JuristJMHookDCLivingstonD. Small unit space transport and insertion (sustain): how to do it and use it as a driver for low-cost responsive orbital launch. In: Th Responsive Space Conference. Citeseer, 2009, pp. 27–30.
5.
ChoGRParkJJChungES, et al.The Korean sounding rocket program. Acta Astronautica2008; 62(12): 706–714. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.01.035.
6.
ChangEYW. From aviation tourism to suborbital space tourism: a study on passenger screening and business opportunities. Acta Astronautica2020; 177(March): 410–420. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.07.020.
7.
AllenJEArmstrongFWDenningRM. Evolution of aviation and propulsion systems: the next fifty years. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng1995; 209(1): 15–33.
8.
SeedhouseE. SpaceShipOne. In: Virgin Galactic. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 33–63. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09262-1_3.
9.
SeedhouseE. SpaceShipTwo: VSS enterprise. In: Virgin Galactic. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 65–85. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09262-1_4.
10.
WebberD. Space tourism: its history, future and importance. Acta Astronautica2013; 92(2): 138–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.038.
11.
SeedhouseE. Spaceports around the world, A global growth industry, SpringerBriefs in space development, volume 131. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-46845-7. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-46846-4.
12.
Sarigul-KlijnMSarigul-KlijnN. Flight mechanics of manned sub-orbital reusable launch vehicles with recommendations for launch and recovery. In: 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2003, p. 909.
13.
DisselAKothariARaghavanV, et al.Comparison of hthl and vthl airbreathing and rocket systems for access to space. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 2006, p. 3988.
14.
MackASteelantJAdirimH, et al.FAST20XX: achievements on European suborbital space flight. In: 7th ESA Aerothermodynamics Symposium, 2011, pp. 9–12.
15.
KlugeGSternCTrammerM, et al.Commercial suborbital space tourism-proposal on passenger’s medical selection. Acta Astronautica2013; 92(2): 187–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.08.005.
16.
FigatMKwiekA. Aerodynamic optimisation of the rocket plane in subsonic and supersonic flight conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2017; 231(12): 2266–2281. DOI: 10.1177/0954410017723672.
17.
CaiGZhuHRaoD, et al.Optimal design of hybrid rocket motor powered vehicle for suborbital flight. Aerospace Sci Technology2013; 25(1): 114–124. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2011.12.014.
18.
ZhuHTianHCaiG, et al.Uncertainty analysis and design optimization of hybrid rocket motor powered vehicle for suborbital flight. Chin J Aeronautics2015; 28(3): 676–686. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2015.04.015.
19.
WangPTianHZhuH, et al.Multi-disciplinary design optimization with fuzzy uncertainties and its application in hybrid rocket motor powered launch vehicle. Chin J Aeronautics2020; 33(5): 1454–1467. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2019.11.002.
20.
HuangX. A prototype computerized synthesis methodology for generic space access vehicle (SAV) conceptual design. PhD Thesis. UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, 2006.
21.
HaoZXingliangSChengenL, et al.Parameter analysis and transient-feature study of a long-time working hybrid rocket motor. J Aerospace Eng2019; 32(6): 04019086. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0001071.
22.
BakhtianiHPHuwaldtJALantzGA, et al.Rocketplane® XP - conceptual design study. Collection Tech Pap - 44th AIAA Aerospace Sci Meet2006; 20(January 2006): 15018–15029. DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-1239.
23.
Sanchez-CarmonaACuerno-RejadoC. Vee-tail conceptual design criteria for commercial transport aeroplanes. Chin J Aeronautics2019; 32(3): 595–610. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2018.06.012.
24.
AntuñanoMJBaisdenDLDavisJ, et al.Guidance for medical screening of commercial aerospace passengers. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OKLAHOMA CITY OK CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INST, 2006. Technical report.
25.
TilleyAR, et al.The measure of man and woman: human factors in design. John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
26.
SadraeyMH. Aircraft design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012. ISBN 9781118352700. DOI:10.1002/9781118352700.
27.
AdelWMLiangG. Service life prediction of AP/Al/HTPB solid rocket propellant with consideration of softening aging behavior. Chin J Aeronautics2019; 32(2): 361–368. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2018.08.003.
28.
PonomarenkoA. Rpa: design tool for liquid rocket engine analysis, 2009.
29.
ZhuHWangPXuW, et al.Design optimization and parameter analysis of a hybrid rocket motor-powered small LEO launch vehicle. Int J Aerospace Eng2021; 2021. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5574436.
30.
OceanicUSNAdministrationAForceUSA. US standard atmosphere, 1976, volume 76. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976.
31.
BlakeWB. Missile datcom: user’s manual-1997 FORTRAN 90 revision. Technical report. Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH Air Vehicles Directorate, 1998.
32.
WuLHuangYZhangJ. The design of guidance on suborbital reentry. In 2009 International Asia Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics. IEEE, IEEE. ISBN 978-0-7695-3519-7, 2009 pp. 402–405. DOI:10.1109/CAR.2009.63.
33.
RegulationsFA. Part 25-Airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes. USA: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1970.
34.
ZhuWFanZYuX. Structural mass prediction in conceptual design of blended-wing-body aircraft. Chin J Aeronautics2019; 32(11): 2455–2465. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2019.08.003.
35.
HuangXChudobaB. Application of a HTHL SAV design methodology to suborbital tourism vehicle. Collection Tech Pap - 45th AIAA Aerospace Sci Meet2007; 5(January): 2835–2853. DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-242.
36.
HongBSohTYPeyLP. Development of a helicopter blade FE model using MIGA optimization. In 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-62410-079-6, p. 1915. DOI:10.2514/6.2004-1915.
37.
WangWYuanSPeiJ, et al.Optimization of the diffuser in a centrifugal pump by combining response surface method with multi-island genetic algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng E: J Process Mech Eng2017; 231(2): 191–201. DOI: 10.1177/0954408915586310.
38.
TaneseR. Distributed genetic algorithms for function optimization, 1989.
39.
RoshanianJKeshavarzZ. Effect of variable selection on multidisciplinary design optimization: a flight vehicle example. Chin J Aeronautics2007; 20(1): 86–96. DOI: 10.1016/S1000-9361(07)60012-0.
40.
ParkJS. Optimal Latin-hypercube designs for computer experiments. J Stat Plann Inference1994; 39(1): 95–111. DOI: 10.1016/0378-3758(94)90115-5.
