Space Tourism Society Malaysian Chapter Spaceplane Design Contest

Results, Comments and Conclusion

The Malaysian Chapter of the Space Tourism Society, has instigated a spaceplane design competition for students. Nine proposed sub-orbital spaceplane design concepts were submitted by Finalists out of a total of 75 initial submissions from student design teams in Malaysia. Each team consisted of approximately ten students and one or more teacher/advisors. Each team was challenged to create a commercial spaceplane design that would allow two to three paying tourists to take a ride up to the threshold of Space, recognized by international convention to be at an altitude of 100 km above the surface of the Earth. Each design team had to take into consideration the requirements and disciplines of aerodynamics, structural and mechanical engineering, chemistry, flight operations, economics, safety and passenger satisfaction. All aerospace vehicle designs are a compromise of these often competing requirements. The best designs are the ones that most cleverly choose between these design considerations. I am pleased to say that each of the nine final teams succeeded in submitted credible, promising design concepts, each impressively unique, each showing considerable understanding of the many conflicting requirements that had to be considered. While all the designs were impressive, the question for the competition was whether one design could be found that most successfully blended together the different design considerations. Therefore, each design submission was judged on five criteria: 1. Originality of Design. Originality is a very important consideration, as it is where breakthroughs come from. However, the more original a design, the greater the risk that it will not be successful. It is, therefore, one of the most difficult considerations for a design team to make. 2. Technical Understanding and Practicality. To what degree did the design team show its knowledge of physics, chemistry and engineering in the development of their design? Is what they have proposed practical? What is its planned

performance? Would it have a good chance of working as they intended? How reliable would it be? And how safe? 3. Ease of Development. Where does each design fall within the existing state-ofthe-art of aerospace design? On a relative scale, how long, difficult and expensive would it be to build the first one? Does the design use existing methods, materials and techniques? Does it require new, but promising technologies? 4. Economical Operations. How expensive would the proposed spaceplane be to operate? What is its likely efficiency in the use of fuel, materials, hardware and labor? 5. Overall Innovation. This is to encourage creativity and innovation among the students, as long as the design is practical. Each category was graded on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best score. Each judging category was graded using both the written description and the visual representation of the design. It must be stated that the visual representations were all very well done. Below is a summary and comments on each of the nine submitted designs and their scoring in the four design criteria and each designs total score. Each team clearly put a great deal of time, thought and effort into their design. Designing a commercial spaceplane is difficult problem to solve and every team member should be proud that they had the courage to put their ideas on paper. Somewhere in the ranks of these students, who are, without a doubt, among the best that Malaysia has to offer, are the spaceplane designers of the future. They have brought great credit to themselves and to their country. - Tony Materna, Vice President, Space Tourism Society Los Angeles, California

THE DESIGNS
Cassiopeia AKTF5 This is a classic delta wing design that adds the unusual element of vertical take off and landing (VTOL), using techniques currently employed by the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II - Joint Strike Fighter. Including VTOL to an aircraft design adds weight and mechanical complexity and is usually only done when the use of a runway is not available, which should not be a problem for commercial spaceplane operations. A pure

VTOL design can have its merits, but then the wings should be eliminated to save weight. Having both wings and VTOL capability is a redundant design. The design get high marks for originally but gets down graded from a practical point of view. It also lowers the Ease of Development score but such a design could potentially be economical to operate. The Cassiopeias proposed seat belt system, which would have a tether that would allow the passengers to float in zero gravity but quickly retracts them to their seats, is a clever idea and adds to originality and the technical issue of safety. However, the team scores very high on overall innovation due to their proposed VTOL concept. The VTOL spaceplane will be very useful for spaceports without runway. Originality 4 Technical 3 Ease of Economy of Overall Development Opeation Innovation 3 4 5 Total 19

Fairy Tale 1 This is a conservative design closely derived from Burt Rutans SpaceShipOne, which won the X Prize. As such, it gets low marks for Originality but a strong technical score. It is different from SpaceShipOne in that instead of a mother ship, the design of Fairy Tale 1 has added two jet engines to allow it to take off on its own, thus removing the added expense of a mother/carrier aircraft. This raises the score for economy of operations but adds weight as the two jet engines have to be carried all the way to peak altitude (apogee). In such a case the type of rocket engine and its specific impulse (Isp), which is a measure of rocket fuel performance, becomes critically important. The designer dont say what type of rocket engine they are planning on using, but since they borrowed much of their design from SpaceShipOne, we will assume that they are using a similar liquid solid hybrid engine. These types of engines have low Isp, typically in the range of 250 seconds. (Thats fuel performance, not length of engine operation.) The Space Shuttle liquid oxygen/hydrogen main engines have an Isp of 453, the highest ever used. For an engine with an Isp in the 250 seconds range, it might be difficult to reach the 100 km altitude goal with the added weight of the jet engines. The designers state in their write up that they will use turbo jet engines, but in their drawing they show fan jet engines. Fan jet engines have a very wide face and it would be difficult for the spaceplane to achieve the supersonic velocity needed with the high amount of drag that fan jet engines would create. Note: All commercial jets using fan jet engines are subsonic. The team scores low on overall innovation because their design is basically a reproduction of SpaceShipOne.

Originality 2

Technical 4

Ease of Economy of Overall Development Opeation Innovation 4 5 2

Total 17

Wan Mas This design has a very original shape and an interesting plan for the rocket fuel. However, the wings seem to be very large compared to the body size, perhaps making their weight greater than necessary. The main wing is also shown in the drawing to be very far forward, while the placement of the fuel tanks and rocket engine are toward the rear of the spaceplane, creating a potential mismatch between the center of lift of the wings and the center of gravity of the vehicle. The vehicle also is designed to use ecofriendly fuels as well as kerosene. While this is philosophically praise-worthy, ecofriendly fuels may not have the same specific impulse performance as other types of rocket fuels. The turbo jet engines are placed very near the tips of the wings, which could create a problem with asymmetric thrust if one engine failed. For that reason, such engines are typically placed closer to the body centerline, if practical. This spaceplane concept would be a straight forward design to develop and would have efficient operations. The team scores high on overall innovation due to their revolutionary design but conservative operation.

Originality 3

Technical 3

Ease of Economy of Overall Development Opeation Innovation 4 5 3

Total 18

Zog Trim This design is derived from conventional aircraft principles, looking very much like an executive jet with rocket boosters strapped on. As a result, it has a low level of originality in its airframe design. However, it has a very original concept for extracting oxygen from the atmosphere, storing it in a tank, and then using it for the rocket. The design team correctly says that up to 40% of the take-off weight can be reduced by this method. However, they claim that take-off speed would be 350 miles per hour, which seem to be much higher than necessary if they have saved so much weight. The vehicle also uses aswing wing design, modeled after the General Dynamics F-111 fighter-bomber. This has the advantages of allowing slower take-off and landing speeds when swept forward, but when swept back into position it allows for less drag as the vehicle accelerates to supersonic flight. However, it does add some weight and

complexity to the design. Working against the advantage of a swept back wing, the large turbo fan jet engines on the wing would have a large drag and retard the spaceplanes acceleration to the supersonic speeds needed to achieve its target apogee. The designers also talk about using two different parachutes to slow their spaceplane when it re-enters the atmospheric, but do not make it clear why this is necessary, since the design would appear not to require this additional step. The design of the airframe would be relatively easy to develop. On the other hand, building a system that could, while in flight, capture air and then separate and liquefy the oxygen, would be a major research and development effort. However, if successful, it would result in a very economical spaceplane to operate. The design scores low on overall innovation, since basically it is a modified and upgraded executive jet. Originality 4 Technical 4 Ease of Economy of Overall Development Opeation Innovation 2 5 2 Total 17

TUAH This design uses a angled take-off and vertical landing approach. It is not clear what advantage this gives the design, but it does mean that it needs to have large jet engines for lift-off that have to be carried all the way to apogee and back and still have enough fuel to power the vertical landing, adding considerably to the initial weight of the vehicle. Also, having the jet engines at the wing tips would mean that if an engine failed while the spaceplane was hovering or climbing or descending vertically, it would immediately roll over and possibly crash, which decreases the safety aspect of this designs technical score. The arched wings are novel and well sized and positioned on the body. The airframe is streamlined and the team shows a good understanding of using a hybrid rocket engine. However, a hybrid rocket may not have sufficient performance to reach the desired altitude. In the write-up, there is the mention of using an ablative heat shield, but re-entry speeds from sub-orbital flight are 1/8th those of orbital re-entry and so there is little atmospheric heating. A heat shield would add unnecessary weight. Development would be straightforward and this would be efficient to operate, though may use more fuel than other designs. The design scores very low on overall innovation because of the unnecessary specifications and impractical operations. Originality 4 Technical 3 Ease of Economy of Overall Development Opeation Innovation 4 4 1 Total 16

Traveller This is a swing wing design and looks like it was derived from a classic fighter type aircraft, with a very clean, aerodynamic airframe. The jet engines are close to the body. The jet engines and rocket are toward the back of the vehicle while the main swing wing is in the middle of the body and this results in a possible mismatch between the vehicles center of gravity, which is near the back of the body, and the center of lift, which is near the middle of the body. In fact, the center of lift of the swing wing will move to the front of the body as the swing wing is extended for take-off or landing, making the mismatch with the center of gravity even more pronounced. The swing wing does add additional weight and complexity to the spaceplane, but this may be balanced out by better take-off performance. Research would be needed to see how much benefit the swing wing adds to the climbing performance of this spaceplane design. The design team plans to use a very high performance, liquid hydrogen-oxygen rocket engine to assist with take-off, which will minimize the size of the jet engines, so less jet engine weight will have to be carried to apogee, which is a good technical design and efficient for operations. The design scores low on overall innovation because of the very conventional approach with quite impractical design. Originality 2 Technical 4 Ease of Economy of Innovation Development Opeation 5 5 1 Total 17

Southern Star This innovative design uses a superconductor magnetic levitating track to aid in take-off and landing. This eliminates the weight of classical landing gear and saves fuel as the mag-lev track can efficiently accelerate the vehicle at the time of launch. The design team also imagines the spaceplane landing on the same mag-lev track. They further plan to use Hall Effect Ion Thrusters for propulsion. These have the benefit of extremely high Isp, on the order of 1,500-3,000 seconds, but historically have only been able to produce low thrust, which would be insufficient to rapidly accelerate a spaceplane of this size. The designers have added two original safety features: 1) a vehicle skin made with memory alloy that would be self-repairing and 2) protection for passengers against solar flares. However, at suborbital altitudes, in the neighborhood of 100 km, there is an extremely low probability of encountering meteors and likewise, there is little danger from the effects of solar flares, so these design features would add more cost and weight than they would contribute to passenger safety.

The design uses swing wings and their advantage and cost trade-offs have been commented on in previous designs, above. The superconducting mag-lev launch system would be a very difficult challenge to make, but if completed, would result in very cost-efficient operations. The design scores high on innovation due to the unconventional but possibly practical concept. Originality 5 Technical 3 Ease of Economy of Innovation Development Opeation 1 5 4 Total 18

Marawangsa This is a very well thought out design that gets almost everything right. It uses ducted turbo fan engines, but it recesses them inside the body to minimize atmospheric drag while accelerating to supersonic speeds. The jet engines are also placed close to the body centerline, minimizing the dangers of asymmetric thrust. The center of gravity and center of lift are well balanced and because of its unusual and innovative swing wing, which spreads from the front, the center of lift actually stays near the back of the vehicle, where the weight from the jets and rocket are located. This forward sweep wing configuration was tested on the Gruman X-29 and the Sukhoi Su-47. The Marawangsa spaceplane has a streamlined, aerodynamic shape. It also has a very innovative concept for the passengers, using Telescopic Observation Tubes which are transparent cylinders that extend from the side of the vehicle when spaceplane is above the zone of atmospheric drag in the flight profile. This would give each paying passenger, the best view in the house. While this would add weight and complexity to the design, it may be worth it if passengers are willing to pay more for this feature. Continuing their successful use of innovation, the designers plan to use an aerospike engine, which in theory would provide for any optimal expansion of the rocket exhaust during all phases of the engine burn even as the atmospheric pressure changes with altitude. The write-up talks about this spaceplane reaching orbit when it gets to 110 km. While it is very likely that a design such as the Marawangsa could potentially reach 110 km altitude on a ballistic trajectory, which is the goal of this competition, it would never have enough velocity to go into orbit, which is not, after all, a design goal.

This design gets high marks for originality and technical merit. It would be difficult to design the Telescopic Observation Tubes, but they could be a best seller for passengers. An aerospike rocket nozzle has never been used on a launch vehicle, so the research and development effort would be considerable, but it might make up for the cost with improved rocket performance. The design also scores high on innovation as the concept and operation are very innovative. Originality 4 Technical 4 Ease of Economy of Innovation Development Opeation 3 5 4 Total 20

Malaysian Space Liner Amongst its competitors this design team is correct in stating that The uniqueness of the design is that it is very simple In engineering design, simple is a great virtue and brings many benefits, including: practicality, reliability, low cost, and easy maintenance. This design seems to have all those benefits and more. It is a very streamlined design, with a delta wing borrowed from the Space Shuttle. The center of lift is at the rear of the body, which is where the rocket engine is, providing good lift and weight balance. The write-up says that it will be carried to its initial altitude by a mother ship and then the single rocket engine will be engaged. This vehicle does not need its own jet engines and thus would save the weight and complexity of having a dual thrust system, though with a increase in operational costs, since it requires two vehicles to launch a mission, i.e. mother ship and space liner. Its airframe design is not original, but has the advantage of being well proven, so its development would be relatively straightforward. It does use an innovative slide-able roof that would reveal a large window for passengers to use to enjoy the view from apogee. The design also has two escape pods for passengers, which adds to safety, but also adds to weight. This spaceplane would glide back to Earth for a landing like the Space Shuttle. Overall an elegant, well balanced, near term design. The team does not score high on overall innovation because due to their conventionality in design and operation. Originality 3 Technical 5 Ease of Economy of Innovation Development Opeation 5 4 3 Total 20

Conclusion The ranking of the designs is as follows: RANKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL POINT 20 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 DESIGN Malaysian Space Liner Marawangsa Cassiopeia AKTF5 Southern Star Wan Mas Traveller Zog Trim Fairy Tale 1 TUAH

Even though the 2 highest scores are the same, we agree that the winner at this stage of this design competition is the Malaysian Space Liner. All the 9 scores are not far from each other as they range between 16 to 20 points. Congratulations! It was a very close competition and each of the design teams are to be complimented for their cleverness, knowledge, problem solving and creativity, all of which was on ample display in these nine spaceplane designs. It is hoped that they will make many more designs in their careers and that the lessons they have learned in this exercise will be valuable to their future, which for each of them is full of promise. Very good work, and well done! Tony Materna The Space Tourism Society Los Angeles, California May 10, 2011 The Judging Committee The Judging Committee consists of Mr. John Spencer the Founder and President of Space Tourism Society, Mr. Tony Materna the Vice President of Space Tourism Society who is also an engineer representing Bristol Spaceplanes the originator of the well known suborbital spaceplane concept, Ascender and an ex-pilot of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and Eliza Lewin an executive member of Space Tourism

Society. The judging was done at Space Tourism Society HQ, at Los Angeles California on 11 May 2011.

From left to right: Eliza Lewin, Tony Materna & John Spencer during the judging of the spaceplane design competition at Space Tourism Society HQ, Los Angeles, California.