See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258515051

Optimal Trajectory Analysis of Hypersonic Boost-Glide Waverider with Heat

load Constraint

Article  in  Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology · November 2013

CITATION READS

1 275

3 authors, including:

S Tauqeer Ul Islam Rizvi

Beihang University (BUAA)
17 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HBG Vehcile Trajectory Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S Tauqeer Ul Islam Rizvi on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimal trajectory analysis of hypersonic
boost-glide waverider with heat load
constraint
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun
School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to study the variation of optimal burnout angle at the end of the ascent phase and the optimal control
deflection during the glide phase, that would maximize the downrange performance of a hypersonic boost-glide waverider, with variation in heat
rate and integrated heat load limit.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach used is to model the boost phase so as to optimize the burnout conditions. The nonlinear,
multiphase, constraint optimal control problem is solved using an hp-adaptive pseudospectral method.
Findings – The constraint heat load results for the waverider configuration reveal that the integrated heat load can be reduced by more than half
with only 10 per cent penalty in the overall downrange of the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle, within a burnout speed range of 3.7 to 4.3 km/s. The
angle-of-attack trim control requirements increase with stringent heat rate and integrated heat load bounds. The normal acceleration remains within
limits.
Practical implications – The trajectory results imply lower thermal protection system weight because of reduced heat load trajectory profile and
therefore lower thermal protection system cost.
Originality/value – The research provides further study on the trajectory design to the hypersonic boost-glide vehicles for medium range
application.
Keywords Heat rate limit, Hypersonic boost-glide, Integrated heat load limit, Pseudospectral method, Trajectory optimization,
Waverider vehicle
Paper type Research paper

Nomenclature T ⫽ Thrust, N
Tg ⫽ Gas Temperature, K
C ⫽ proportionality constant, kg0.5m1.5/s0.3 Tw ⫽ Wall temperature, K
CD ⫽ coefficient of drag t ⫽ time, s
CL ⫽ coefficient of lift V ⫽ velocity, m/s
CL␣ ⫽ Lift coefficient derivative with respect to V3 ⫽ burnout velocity, m/s
angle-of-attack W/S ⫽ planform loading, kg/m2
D ⫽ drag force, N ␣ ⫽ angle-of-attack
g ⫽ acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 ␤ ⫽ inverse of density scale height, m
g0 ⫽ acceleration due to gravity at sea-level, m/s2 ␥ ⫽ flight path angle, deg or rad
L ⫽ lift force, N ␥3 ⫽ flight path angle at burnout point, deg
L/D ⫽ lift-to-drag ratio ⌿ ⫽ heading angle, deg or rad
m ⫽ mass, kg ⍜ ⫽ longitude, deg or rad
nz ⫽ normal acceleration, g ⌽ ⫽ latitude, deg or rad
Q ⫽ total heat load, J/m2 ␳ ⫽ density, kg/m3
Q̇, Q= ⫽ heat transfer rate, W/m2 ␳0 ⫽ sea-level density, kg/m3
q ⫽ dynamic pressure, Pa ␮ ⫽ gravitational parameter, m3/s2
Re ⫽ radius of earth, 6,378 ⫻ 103 m ␴ ⫽ bank angle, deg or rad
R ⫽ total missile range, m
S ⫽ reference area, m2
Introduction
The performance of the lifting reentry vehicle is linked to the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on lift-to-drag ratio and a waverider design provides the best
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm

The authors would like to thank the Chinese Scholarship Council for
funding the research.
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
87/1 (2015) 67–78 Received 28 April 2013
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] Revised 10 August 2013
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-04-2013-0079] Accepted 16 November 2013

67
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

lift-to-drag ratio in the hypersonic regime, making it ideally et al., 2013). It, therefore, becomes essential to model the
suitable for a hypersonic cruise, as well as hypersonic boost phase so as to optimize the burnout angle which would
boost-glide (HBG) vehicles. The sharp nose radius of the result in maximum downrange performance of the vehicle
waverider vehicle exerts an additional burden on the thermal under heat rate and integrated heat load constraints. The
protection system (TPS) because of high heat rates and higher current paper deliberates on computing the optimal burnout
total integrated heat load. NASA Ames and Sandia Slender conditions at the end of the ascent phase, and the optimal
Aerodynamic Research Probe (SHARP L1) has a nose control deflections during the reentry phase which would
leading-edge radius of the order of 3-6 mm (Whitmore and maximize the downrange performance of the small-size
Dunbar, 2003) and, therefore, experiences a very high heat waverider, with different heat-rate and integrated heat load
rate during the reentry phase. The waverider technology is still limits.
undergoing test and trial in the form of X-41 vehicle by The problem has been modeled as a four-phase optimal
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The heat rate control problem. The numerical optimization study has been
limit relates to the maximum temperature a material can bear, carried out for two payload sizes on a launch vehicle, to show
whereas the integrated heat load directly relates to the validity of results within a burnout speed range of 3.7-4.3 km/s.
thickness of the TPS and hence the empty weight of the The approach, which encompasses modeling of mass,
vehicle. It is for this reason that the deterioration of propulsion, aerodynamic and thermodynamics, as well as the
downrange and cross-range performance with materials of flight dynamics of the launch and the glide vehicles, gives the best
varying degree of heat rate tolerance needs to be studied. burnout angle and the burnout altitude for the ascent vehicle, as
Trajectories with a limit on the total heat load provide the best well as the angle-of-attack control profile during the reentry
mechanism by which the TPS weight can be reduced. phase required for maximum downrange trajectories. The
In the past, numerous studies have been performed on non-linear optimal control problem is solved using an
lifting reentry vehicles for intercontinental missile hp-adaptive pseudospectral method implemented in Gauss
applications, orbital Space Planes and crew return vehicles. Pseudospectral Optimization Software, GPOPS® (Rao, 2011).
Trajectory optimization studies for a lifting crew return vehicle
was carried out by Whitmore et al. (2006). Optimal Physical model
trajectories for orbital transfer vehicles have been studied by Equations of motion
Hull and Speyer (1982), Zimmermann and Calise (1998), The following set of 3-df equations of motion is used to
Darby and Rao (2011). Gogu et al. (2009) solved a coupled simulate the flight dynamics of the launch, as well as the
trajectory optimization problem for an orbital transfer vehicle hypersonic glide vehicles. The equations have been extensively
with the objective to minimize the thermal protection system used in the study of re-entry vehicles and their guidance
mass. Wing-body configuration was studied by Parish II systems (Hull and Speyer, 1982; Gogu et al., 2009; Darby and
(1995) for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles application. Rao, 2011).
The concept of HBG vehicle was introduced by Sanger and
Bred (1944), who envisioned a vehicle which reached dr
⫽ V sin ␥ (1)
hypervelocity using rocket motors and returned to earth along dt
a combined skip-glide trajectory. The vehicle utilized
aerodynamic lift to cancel the effect of gravity during the d⌰ V cos ␥ sin ␺
⫽ (2)
ascent, as well as the glide path. Further work was done by dt r cos ␸
Eggers et al. (1955) who also considered aero-thermodynamic
heating and advanced the concept of hypersonic boost-glide d⌽ V cos ␥ cos ␺
⫽ (3)
bomber. Li (2009) carried out trajectory optimization of a dt r
boost-glide hypersonic missile waverider configuration by
using the shooting technique and calculated the footprint of an dV T D
⫽ cos ␣ ⫺ ⫺ g sin ␥ (4)
HBG missile, boosted from a Minuteman III launch vehicle. dt m m
For most of these applications, reentry speeds greater than 6
km/s and reentry angle less than 5 degree have been
considered. Scant attention has been paid to the high
d␥
dt
⫽
1 T
V m 关共
sin ␣ ⫹
L
m 兲
cos ␴ ⫺ g ⫺
V2
r 共
cos ␥ 兲 兴 (5)
lift-to-drag configurations for medium and intermediate range
applications, i.e. downrange between 1,000 and 5,500 km
(NASIC, 2006). Moreover, the dependence of optimal
d␺
dt
⫽
1 T
V m 关共
sin ␣ ⫹
L sin ␴
m cos ␥
⫹兲V2 cos ␥ sin ␺ tan ␾
r
(6) 兴
burnout angle on the heat rate and integrated heat load bound
has not been shown in the previous studies. dm ⫺T
⫽ (7)
Reentry vehicles experience very high heating rates on dt Isp.g0
atmospheric reentry which is strongly dependent on burnout
conditions. Higher burnout angles result in high decent rates Where, r is the radial distance from the center of the earth to the
upon reentry, and the vehicle quickly approaches the heat rate reentry vehicle. The terms, ⍜ and ␸ are the longitude and
boundary, resulting in non-feasible trajectories because of latitude, respectively. The symbol V represents the total velocity
violation of heat rate bound. On the other hand, shallow of the vehicle, and ␥ and ␺ denote the flight path angle and the
burnout angles result in higher flight time within the azimuth angle, respectively. The terms, L and D are lift and drag
atmosphere, resulting in higher integrated heat load (Rizvi and are defined as L ⫽ 0.5CL␳V2S, and D ⫽ 0.5CD␳V2S,

68
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

respectively. The terms, ␣ and ␴ denote the angle-of-attack and
bank angle control, respectively. The angle-of-attack control
modulates the lift and drag forces which results in change in the
velocity and the flight path angle. The bank angle control is used
to tilt the lift vector which results in change in the heading angle.
The bank angle remains zero degree through out the flight for
optimal downrange performance. The term, “m”, represents
mass which reduces as fuel is consumed to produce thrust (T)
during the boost flight.
Ballistic vehicle and reentry vehicle data
The vehicle data of the launch and the waverider vehicle data, as
well as the physical constants, are summarized in Tables I and II,
respectively. The boost vehicle is a two-stage vehicle with a
burnout speed in vicinity of 3.7 km/s for a payload mass of 1,200 kg.
The burnout speed increases to 4.3 km/s for a payload mass of
900 kg. The burn time of each rocket motor is about 80 s. The
boost vehicle data does not resemble any particular launch
vehicle and is not an optimized vehicle for the purpose.
Trajectory sequence
The optimization problem has been divided into four phases
as to handle discontinuities in control mode and mass at the
end of each boost stage:
1 First 5 s of first-stage boost phase, during which pitch
maneuver does not take place.
2 The time duration after t ⫽ 5s till the burnout of the
first-stage rocket motor. It is during this phase that the
launch vehicle pitches down using angle-of-attack control.
3 The second-stage boost phase during which the flight path
angle changes to meet the burnout conditions.
4 The free flight and the reentry stage during which the
glide-vehicle is steered to optimal downrange with the
help of angle-of-attack control.
Table I Launch vehicle data
Quantity Launcher
Body diameter, [m] 1.4
Propulsion Solid
Booster 1
Propellant mass, [kg] 13,700
Empty mass, [kg] 2,600
Thrust, [N] 398,000
Isp, [s] 237
Booster 2
Propellant mass, [kg] 3,250
The states at the end of the second and third phase, which
include the burnout angle, burnout altitude, and the burnout
speed are treated as free parameters and can be optimized.
The fourth phase includes the free flight stage, as well as the
glide/re-entry stage (Figure 1).
Aerodynamic model
The aerodynamic model for the waverider configuration is
obtained using the experimental data by Crockrell et al.
(1995). The lift curve slope has been adjusted to that of a flat
plate at hypersonic speeds obtained using Newtonian flow
theory (Anderson, 1989). This is done, as the CD and
lift-to-drag ratio data provided by Crockrell et al. (1995) is
valid only till Mach 4.5 and is provided as a function of CL till
a value of 0.25 only. It has been assumed that the CD trend
remains the same till a trim CL value of 0.7 which corresponds
to angle-of-attack of 50 degree. The assumption is valid in
light of the Newtonian theory (Anderson, 1989). The
aerodynamic model is assumed to be a function of the
angle-of-attack only. This is true in the hypersonic region in
which the aerodynamic coefficients do not vary with Mach
number (Bertin, 1994; Anderson, 1989).
The equations for a waverider configuration are:
CL ⫽ ⫺0.04 ⫹ 0.8␣ (8)
CD ⫽ 0.012 ⫺ 0.01␣ ⫹ 0.6␣2 (9)
The aerodynamic model for the boost phase was used as
provided by He (2002) (Figure 2). The lift and drag
coefficients are a function of angle-of-attack, as well as the
Mach number during the boost phase as shown in Tables III
and IV. The coefficients are non-dimensionalized with respect
to the maximum frontal area of the launch vehicle.
Earth and the atmosphere
The earth is assumed to be a perfect, non-rotating sphere. The
acceleration due to gravity is given by Newton’s inverse square
law.
␮
g⫽ (10)
r2
Figure 1 Schematics for boost-glide missile trajectory design
problem
Free Flight

Empty mass, [kg] 650

Phase 3:
Thrust, [N] 97,000 2nd Stage Phase 4:
boost Free Flight + Reentry/ Glide + Terminal flight
Isp, [s] 250
Reentry/ Glide

Phase 2:
Table II Reentry vehicle data and physical constants 1st Stage boost
with change in
pitch angle
Configuration Quantity Numerical values
Terminal
Flight
Waverider Mass, [kg] 1200/900 Phase 1:

W/S, [kg/m2] 400 Vertical

ascent
Terminal Conditions:
Velocity: 0.72 km/s
RN, [m] 0.006 Flight Path Angle: − 80 deg

C, [kg0.5m1.5/s3] 1.1813 ⫻ 10-3 Earth Curvature

69
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

Figure 2 Lift-to-drag ratio variation with angle-of-attack for a Where, t0 and tf are the initial and final times in the fourth and
waverider configuration and comparison with experimental data of final flight phase, respectively.
reference Crockrell et al. (1995)
Normal acceleration
1
CL Aeromodel For a lifting vehicle, the normal acceleration is of greater
CD Aeromodel importance as compared to the total deceleration load. This
0.5
is because a lifting reentry vehicle typically reenters the
CL, CD

CD Data
atmosphere at shallow reentry angles and at high
0
angle-of-attack to reduce the descent rate. This results in a
higher normal-force as compared to the axial force during
−0.5
−10 0 10 20 30 40 50 the reentry, as well as the glide phase. The normal
Angle-of-Attack (deg) acceleration is computed using the relation given by
5 equation (13).

L cos ␣ ⫹ D sin ␣
0 nz ⫽ (13)
mg
L/D

-5 L/D Aeromodel
Controls
L/D Data
The waverider vehicle has angle-of-attack and bank angle
−10 control. The vehicles are assumed to have angle-of-attack
−10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle-of-Attack (deg) trim capability up from ⫺10 to ⫹50 degree. The
angle-of-attack control modulates the lift as well as the heat
rate. The bank angle control remains zero for optimal
Table III CL␣ variation with Mach number for a launch vehicle
downrange performance.
CL␣ Mach number range
2.8 0 ⱕ M ⱕ 0.25 Boundary conditions and path constraints
2.8 ⴙ 0.447 (Mⴚ0.25) 0.25 ⱕ M ⱕ 1.1 Initial conditions
3.18 ⴚ 0.66 (Mⴚ1.1) 1.1 ⱕ M ⱕ 1.6 The initial conditions correspond to the launch vehicle at
2.85 ⴙ 0.35 (Mⴚ1.6) 1.6 ⱕ M ⱕ 3.6 the launch pad, implies:
3.55 M ⱖ 3.6
r(i) ⫽ 6378 km; ⌰(i) ⫽ 0; ␾(i) ⫽ 0.0;V(i) ⫽ 0.0m/s; ␥(i)
⫽ 90 deg; ␺ ⫽ 90 deg; m ⫽ m0 (14)
Table IV CD variation with mach number for a launch vehicle
Final conditions
CD Mach number range For the current study, the maximum terminal speed is
0.29 0 ⱕ M ⱕ 0.8 considered to be 720 m/s at an impact angle of ⫺80 degree
Mⴚ0.51 0.8 ⱕ M ⱕ 1.068 for the glide vehicle. The requirement has been modeled as
0.091 ⴙ 0.5/M M ⱖ 1.068 a terminal boundary condition.

r(f) ⫽ 6378 km, V(f) ⫽ 720 m/s; ␥(f) ⫽ ⫺80 deg (15)

The atmosphere is modeled using 1976 ICAO atmospheric
model.
Stagnation point heat rate
The stagnation point heating rate is modeled by using the
equation given by Scott et al. (1985). The convective heat
transfer rate is given by equation (11).
Q= ⫽ C␳0.5V3.05
The heat rate, Q⬘ is directly proportion to the square root of
density, ␳, and the cube of velocity, V. C is the proportionality
constant, which is dependent on the nose radius, RN, and the
catalytic behavior of the material and is defined in Table II.
The total heat load at the stagnation point is calculated using
the relationship below:
tf
Dynamic pressure constraint
A dynamic pressure limit corresponds to the maximum
stagnation pressure which the vehicle structure can bear in
the presence of high acceleration loads. The terminal
constraints imply that the vehicle shall sustain a dynamic
pressure of approximately 320 KPa toward the end of the
mission. The dynamic pressure constraint of 320 KPa has
been imposed as a path constraint during the entire flight.
(11) The maximum dynamic pressure is kept equivalent to the
dynamic pressure experienced by the vehicle in the terminal
phase.
1 2
q⫽ ␳V ⬍ 320, 000 Pa (16)
2
Heat rate constraint
The heat rate constraint is directly linked to the surface
temperature. The surface is assumed to be in radiative

兰
equilibrium with the surroundings.
Q⫽ Q⬘dt (12)
t0 Q̇ ⫽ ␦␧th(T4g ⫺ T4w) (17)

70
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun
If Tg ⬍⬍ Tw, it implies:
冉 冊
1
Q̇ 4 optimization problem:
Tw ⫽
␴␧TH
Where, ␦ is the Stefan – Boltzmann constant, which is equal to
5.67 ⫻ 10⫺8 W/(m2.K4), and  is the surface emissivity which
is generally close to 0.8.
The Carbon – Carbon Composite (2014) material can
retain its properties till a temperature of 2,800 or 3,073°K
(Darby and Rao, 2011). The temperature corresponds to the
heat rate limit of approximately 4.0 MW/m2 which can be
computed using equation (19). Maximum temperature values
corresponding to different heat rate values are tabulated in
Table V.
Q̇ ⱕ Q̇max
The heat rate, Q̇ is directly proportion to the square root of
density, ␳, and the cube of velocity, V. C is the proportionality
constant, which is dependent on the nose radius, RN, and the
catalytic behavior of the material and is defined in Table II.
Objective function
The objective is to find the angle-of-attack control deflections
that would maximize the downrange of the reentry vehicle
subject to dynamic pressure and heat rate/integrated heat load
bounds. Maximizing the downrange is similar to maximizing
the longitude at the final time tf of Phase 4. This predicament
is a Mayer’s problem and can be expressed as:
J ⫽ min[⫺xf(2)]4
Where, min [⫺xf(2)]4 represents the maximum value of
second state (i.e. longitude) at the final time tf of the fourth
phase.
It may be noted, that the objective function has only been
optimized for the fourth and final phase. The boost phase
optimization is indirectly catered for, by optimization of the
burnout parameters, which results in range maximization of
the fourth phase. Moreover, the percentage of range covered
during the first three phases is approximately 10 per cent of
the overall range; therefore, the results presented in the
analysis can be considered equivalent to overall range
optimization.
Table V Temperature values corresponding to heat rate limits
Q̇max
(MW/m ) 2
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78
Method used
A number of methods exist for solving a trajectory
(18)
● optimal control theory;
● shooting techniques; and
● heuristic algorithms.
The advantages and shortcomings of various techniques as
applied to trajectory optimization techniques are discussed in
reference (Betts, 1998).
Heuristic techniques are simple to implement and are
widely used for problems where the variables are discrete.
However, in case of trajectory optimization, the control and
the state variables are not discrete but are continuous in time
domain, and therefore heuristic optimization is not suitable for
this kind of problem. The number of trajectory points is very
large. In such a case, heuristic algorithms would take a very
(19) large convergence times and the convergence would also not
be guaranteed (Betts, 1998).
Shooting techniques have also been very popular during the
past two decades to solve the nonlinear, constraint, trajectory
optimization problem. In case of direct shooting methods, the
control vector is optimized by means of a sequential quadratic
programming (SQP) Algorithm. The objective function and
the constraints are evaluated by integrating the equations of
motion in time. The final outcome of shooting algorithm is
sensitive to the initial guess. The control vector is also discrete,
and the intermediate control deflections are computed
through interpolation. It is because of this reason that the
shooting techniques are only successful once the dynamics is
slow, and the initial guess lies in the vicinity of the optimal
solution. Shooting techniques have been successfully used in
reentry plane change problems by Gogu et al. (2009), Hull
(20)
and Speyer (1982), Zimmermann and Calise (1998). Li
(2009), Li et al. (2009) also used a shooting technique to solve
coupled launch and reentry trajectory optimization problem
with heat rate constraint.
In pseudospectral method, the time interval of the optimal
control problem is split into a prescribed number of
subintervals. The end points are called nodes, and the entire
distribution of nodes can be referred to as a mesh within the
time domain. The points within the nodes are called
collocation points and are governed by strict quadrature rules.
The method is based on the theory of orthogonal collocation
where the collocation points are the Lagrange – Gauss points.
By using the properties of the Lagrange polynomials, the state
equations and the control constraints are transformed into
algebraic equations. In this way, the optimal control problem
is reduced to a non-linear programming problem.
In h method, low-order polynomials are used to
Tmax approximate the state vector. The mesh is refined till the
(°C) required accuracy of the solution is obtained. In p method, a
2,690 single interval is used, and the accuracy is improved by
2,580 increasing the order p of the polynomial. In an hp adaptive
2,450 method, the required accuracy is achieved by increasing the
2,305 number of nodes, as well as the degree of polynomial.
2,125 Additional nodes are introduced where the curvature is sharp
1,895 and therefore the method is called the hp-adaptive
pseudospectral method (Darby and Rao, 2011). The
71
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

hp-adaptive pseudospectral method is implemented in Gauss
Pseudospectral Optimization Software, GPOPS (Rao, 2011).
Pseudospectral methods have been extensively used in a
variety of problems in trajectory optimization. Examples range
from low-thrust orbit transfer (Darby and Rao, 2011), pick
and place maneuver of robots (Strizzi et al., 2002), solar sail
trajectory optimization (Stevens and Ross, 2003), launch
vehicle ascent guidance (Rea, 2003), reentry trajectory design
(Josselyn and Ross, 2003), etc.
The optimal control combined ascent and reentry problem
for unconstraint heat load is expressed as to determine that
state vector 关r共t兲, ⌰共t兲, ⌽共t兲, V共t兲, ␥共t兲, ␺共t兲, m共t兲兴 and the
control vector 关␣共t兲, ␴共t兲兴 that minimizes the cost function
subject to the dynamic constraints of all variables given in state
vector, the initial and terminal flight constraints given in
equations (14) and (15), respectively, and the path constraints
given by equations (16) and (19). The state vector changes to
关r共t兲, ⌰共t兲, ⌽共t兲, V共t兲, ␥共t兲, ␺共t兲, m共t兲, Q共t兲兴 for the constraint
heat load problem, subject to an additional dynamic heat load
constraint, equation (11). The nonlinear optimal control
problem is solved using open-source GPOPS version 4.0. The
program utilizes hp-adaptive Radau Pseudospectral Method
(RPM) for solving the optimal control problem. The RPM is
an orthogonal collocation method where the collocation
points are the Legendre – Gauss – Radau points. The number
of mesh intervals and the number of collocation points are
determined iteratively. The error is computed by determining
the accuracy by which the differential equations and the path
constraints are satisfied between the collocation points. The
mesh refinement continues till a solution is obtained which
satisfies the error tolerance (Darby and Rao, 2011). The detail
of the hp-adaptive algorithm is given by Garg et al. (2010). For
the current research, the maximum number of mesh iterations
was set to 12 with 4-10 nodes between the collocation points.
The error tolerance was set to 1e-3 which is also the default
value. The non-linear programming derivatives were
computed using a finite difference scheme.
Results
Numerical results for heat rate constraint problem
Numerical results for the two boost-glide waverider
configurations with varying heat rate limits and the objective
to maximize the downrange are shown in Table VI.
Configuration is boosted to a burnout speed of approximately
3.7 km/s while configuration is boosted to a speed of 4.3 km/s.
The table provides the optimal values of the objective
function, the corresponding optimal burnout conditions, as
well the time-of-flight, the maximum normal acceleration, and
the total heat load values corresponding to each trajectory.
The table show that as the heat rate constraint is reduced, the
down performance also decreases. The reduction in heat rate
is also accompanied by reduction in integrated heat load.
The per cent loss in the downrange with the reduction in the
heat rate limit is shown in Figure 3(a). The figure shows that
near optimal performance with less than a 5 per cent loss in
downrange can be obtained for both waverider configurations
with heat limit of 3 MW/m2. Heat rate bound of 2.5 MW/m2
also results in acceptable performance with approximately 7
per cent loss in downrange as compared to optimal
performance corresponding to heat rate bound of 4 MW/m2.
This corresponds to the material temperature limit of 2,450°C
as compared to that of 2,800°C that exists for state-of-art C-C
material (Table III). The per cent reduction in the integrated
heat load with reduction in heat rate bound is shown in
Figure 3(b). The graph shows that for the heat rate limit of
2.5 MW/m2, per cent decrease in the integrated heat load is
only 6 per cent for both configurations. This can be
understood by observing the heat rate profile shown in
Figures 4(c) and 5(c). The diagram shows the entire heat rate
profile, depicting exposure times to maximum heat
rate/temperature to which a material would be exposed at the
nose stagnation point during such a flight. The difference in
the integrated heat load values for 4 and 3 MW/m2 stagnation
point heat rate bound trajectories is low because, in the former
case, the maximum heat rate is encountered for a very small
period of time. The optimal trajectory path at higher heat rate
bound has a skipping motion, and the vehicle spends some
time at higher altitudes, resulting in lesser convective heat
transfer and therefore lower integrated heat load.
Figures 4(a) and 5(a) shows the trajectory shapes with
different heat rate constraints on altitude vs velocity diagram.
The figures show that the constraint heat rate and the
constraint dynamic pressure bound are not violated in all
cases. The figures also show that as the heat rate bound is
reduced, the burnout altitude reduces because of lowering of
burnout angle. The optimum burnout angle for maximum

Table VI Numerical results for waverider performance with heat constraint

Q⬘max Q Down range Cross range
Configuration [MW/m2] [GJ/m2] [km] [km] ␥b(f)° Vb(f) [km] hb(f) [km] nz max [g] Time [min]
(a) Launch vehicle with 4.0 1.864 3,321 0 5.2 3.7 65.4 3.8 26.30
1,200 kg payload 3.5 1.886 3,268 0 3.9 3.7 61.6 3.2 26.02
3.0 1.913 3,188 0 1.6 3.7 55.7 2.3 25.73
2.5 1.758 3,096 0 2.2 3.7 55.7 1.8 25.10
2.0 1.517 2,956 0 2.2 3.7 54.1 1.3 24.55
1.5 1.158 2,647 0 2.6 3.7 54.0 1.3 22.96
(b) Launch vehicle with 4.0 2.325 4,517 0 4.8 4.3 68.0 3.8 31.1
900 kg payload 3.5 2.348 4,387 0 3.6 4.3 64.0 1.9 30.4
3.0 2.330 4,337 0 2.7 4.3 61.0 1.8 29.6
2.5 2.190 4,248 0 2.1 4.3 57.9 1.2 28.9
2.0 1.880 4,015 0 2.2 4.3 57.8 1.3 29.0

72
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

Figure 3 (a) Percent loss in downrange with reduction in heat rate Figure 5 Optimal trajectories for the boost-glide waverider
bound; (b) Percent reduction in integrated heat load with reduction vehicle with heat rate constraints and objective to maximize the
in heat rate bound downrange at burnout speed of 4.3 km/s
25 45 80 80
Vb = 3.7 km/s
40
Vb = 4.3 km/s, 60 60
Glide flight

Altitude (km)

Altitude (km)
20 35
40 40
30

percent heat load reduction

percent range reduction

,000
Heat rate bound 3,20

00
20 20 Boost flight

,0
15 25

35

2
4
Dynamic pressure bound
20 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Velocity (km/s) Range (km)
10 15
(a) (b)
10
5

35 Q’ max = 4.0 MW/m2

5 5
4 Q’ max = 3.0 MW/m2
30

Angle-of-Attack (deg)
Heat Rate(MW/m 2)
0 25 Q’ max = 2.0 MW/m2
3
20
0 −5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 2 15
2
Q’ (MW/m ) Q’ (MW/m 2) 10
1
5
(a) (b)
0
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 500 1,000 1,500
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 4 Optimal trajectories for the boost-glide waverider (c) (d)

vehicle with heat rate constraints and objective to maximize the Notes: (a) Altitude vs velocity plot; (b) altitude vs range; (c) heat
downrange at burnout speed of 3.7 km/s rate vs time; (d) angle-of attack vs time
70

60 60 constant dynamic pressure line. For heat bounds of 3 MW/m2

50 50 Glide and lower, the vehicle first follows the heat rate bound followed
Altitude (km)
Altitude (km)

40 40 by the optimum dynamic pressure value of approximately 35

KPa, corresponding to trim CL at maximum lift-to-drag ratio
2

30 30
4

value and wing loading. A low value of heat rate constraint forces
0

20 20
00
35

Boost flight
10 Heat rate bound 10 the vehicle to maintain an equilibrium glide trajectory along the
0
Dynamic pressure bound 0 heat rate bound, resulting in a steeper decent angle as shown in
0 1 2 3 4 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Velocity (km/s) Range (km) Figures 4(b) and 5(b) on an altitude vs range plot. Low dynamic
(a) (b) pressure at the burnout point causes the vehicle to trim at a high
40
angle-of-attack (Figures 4(d) and 5(d)) to arrest the descent rate
4 Q’ max = 4.0 MW/m2 and prevent the vehicle from violating the heat rate bound.
Higher angle-of-attack results in loss of energy to drag and, as a
Angle-of-Attack (deg)

30 Q’ max = 3.0 MW/m2

Heat Rate(MW/m 2)

3
2
1 The vehicle then flies at a constant dynamic pressure profile and
0
0 500 1,000
Time (s)
(c) (d)
Notes: (a) Altitude vs velocity plot; (b) altitude vs range; (c) heat
rate vs time; (d) angle-of attack vs time
downrange performance, corresponding to 4 MW/m2 bound is
approximately 5 degree which reduces to 2.2 degree for 2 MW/
m2 heat rate bound (Table VI) for both configurations. The
shallow entry angle reduces the trim angle-of-attack requirement
at the initiation of glide phase and therefore minimizes the energy
lost to drag force, resulting in maximum downrange.
Figures 4(a) and 5(a) further show that for maximum heat
rate bound of 4 MW/m2 the optimal trajectory has an unsteady
skipping phase followed by as steady-state descent along the
Q’ max = 2.0 MW/m2 consequence, lower downrange performance. The
20
angle-of-attack demand reduces with an increase in dynamic
10 pressure as the vehicle descends along the constant heat-rate line.
0
maintains an optimal angle-of-attack of approximately 10
1,500 500 1,000 1,500 degrees, corresponding to the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, to
Time (s)
obtain maximum downrange before diving down to meet
terminal velocity and flight path constraints.
Numerical results for the heat load constraint problem
Table VII provides the end trajectory optimization results for
waverider configuration with integrated heat load constraint. The
deterioration of waverider downrange performance with heat
load is portrayed in Figure 6, which shows that for burnout speed
of 3.7 km/s, near optimal performance with approximately 6.5
per cent loss in the overall range can be obtained with trajectory
designs that result in 50 per cent reduced integrated heat. For
higher burnout speed of 4.3 km/s, the loss in downrange is 8 per
cent for trajectory design with 50 per cent reduced heat load as
compared to the unconstraint heat load trajectory profile.

73
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

Table VII Numerical results for waverider performance with heat constraint
Q⬘max Q Down range Cross range
Configuration [MW/m2] [GJ/m2] [km] [km] ␥b(f)° Vb(f) [km] hb(f) [km] nz max [g] Time [min]
a
(a) Launch vehicle with 4.0 1.864 3,321 0 5.2 3.7 65.4 3.8 26.30
1,200 kg payload 4.0 1.5 3,281 0 9.1 3.7 76.6 6.8 26.12
4.0 1.25 3,210 0 11.2 3.7 82.8 6.5 25.81
4.0 1.1 3,135 0 10.9 3.7 82.0 7.5 25.46
4.0 0.93 3,110 0 15.1 3.7 92.8 8.6 25.35
4.0 0.5 2,676 0 16.4 3.7 96.8 10.0 22.57
(b) Launch vehicle with 4.0 2.325a 4,517 0 4.8 4.3 68.0 3.8 31.1
900 kg payload 4.0 1.860 4,406 0 6.38 4.3 72.8 3.4 30.5
4.0 1.534 4,270 0 7.1 4.3 75.7 3.9 30.06
4.0 1.162 4,167 0 12.5 4.3 90.0 7.0 29.6
4.0 0.767 3,708 0 11.5 4.3 88.0 7.0 27.2
Note: a unconstraint heat load results

Figure 6 Percent loss in downrange with heat rate for the Figure 7 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat
boost-glide waverider vehicle load constraints; altitude vs velocity diagram (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2,
Vb ⬇ 3.7 km/s)
20
Vb = 3.7 km/s 100
18
Vb = 4.3 km/s, q (Pa)
90 2
16 Q` constraint (MW/m )
2
80 Q = 1.86 GJ/m (unconstraint)
14 2
percent range reduction

Q = 1.25 GJ/m
12 70 2
Q = 0.93 GJ/m
60
Altitude (km)

10

8 50
Boost Flight
6 40
000 4
4 30 35,

2 20
glide/ reentry flight ,000
0
,00

0
3,2 Heat rate constraint
35

0 10
4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
percent heat load reduction 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Velocity (km/s)

The detailed trajectory shapes, path variable and control

deflections are shown in Figures 7 – 11 for burnout speed of
3.7 km/s. Trajectory shapes, path variables and angle-of-attack
Figure 8 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat load
control profile for burnout speed of 4.3 km/s are shown in
constraints; altitude vs range (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2, Vb ⬇ 3.7 km/s)
Figures 12 – 16. Figure 7 and Figure 12 show the optimum
trajectory shapes, for the two burnout speeds, on altitude vs
Q = 1.86 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
velocity diagram. The figures show that in both cases, the
140 Q = 1.25 GJ/m2
optimal trajectories with unconstraint heat load are smooth
Q = 0.93 GJ/m2
and the waverider vehicle glides along a equilibrium glide path 120
along constant dynamic pressure line (Figures 9(b) and
14(b)). As the integrated heat load constraint is reduced, the 100
Altitude (km)

burnout altitude increases, and the glide trajectory profile

results in unsteady, high amplitude motion. The figures also 80

show that the heat rate and dynamic pressure constraint lines
60
are not violated. Figures 8 and 13 show that by reducing the
total heat load, the burnout angle increases, which also results 40
in an increase in the free-flight range and decrease in the
reentry range, as well as the flight duration of the reentry 20
phase, resulting in a lesser integrated heat load. The burnout
angle increases from an optimum value of 5.2 degree to a value 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
of 15.1 degree corresponding to a burnout speed of 3.7 km/s, Range (km)

74
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

Figure 9 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat load Figure 11 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat
constraints load constraints; angle-of-attack vs time (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2,
Vb ⬇ 3.7 km/s)
6
Q = 1.86 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
Heat Rate(MW/m 2)

60
4 Q = 1.25 GJ/m2 Q = 1.86 GJ/m 2 (unconstraint)
Q = 0.93 GJ/m2 50 Q = 1.25 GJ/m 2
2 Q = 0.93 GJ/m 2

40

Angle-of-Attack (deg)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Time (s) 30
(a)
400 20
Dynamic Pressure (kPa)

300
10
200

100 0

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 −10
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Time (s)
Time (s)
(b)
Notes: (a) Heat rate vs time; (b) dynamic pressure vs time ( < Figure 12 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat
4 MW/m2, Vb ≈ 3.7 km/s) load constraints; altitude vs velocity diagram (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2,
Vb ⬇ 4.3 km/s)
Figure 10 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat 100
load constraints; normal acceleration vs time (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2, q (Pa)
90 Q` constraint (MW/m2)
Vb ⬇ 3.7 km/s)
80 Q = 2.325 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
10 Q = 1.534 GJ/m2
Q = 1.86 GJ/m2 (unconstraint) 70 Q = 1.162 GJ/m2
8
Q = 1.25 GJ/m2
60
Altitude (km)

Q = 0.93 GJ/m2
6
50
4
40
000
2
30 35,
nz (g)

4
,000
0 20 3,20
0

Heat rate bound

,00

00
0,0
35

−2 10
3,2 Dynamic Pressure bound
4

−4 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Velocity (km/s)
−6

−8
0 200 400
once the heat load is constrainted by 50 per cent (0.93 GJ/m2).
For burnout speed of 4.3 km/s, the optimal burnout angle
increases from 4.8 degree to a maximum of 12.5 degree once
the integrated heat load is constraint by 50 per cent (1.162
GJ/m2). Lowering the heat load constraint, the vehicle
executes a higher amplitude motion, spending more time in
the low density region, resulting in lesser convective heat
transfer and, therefore, lesser integrated heat load. The
convective heat transfer rate is shown in Figures 9(a) and
14(a) as a function of time.
With each skip, the kinetic energy of the waverider
vehicle reduces, and the vehicle quickly approaches the
terminal velocity bound. The loss of kinetic energy is linked
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 to the higher induced drag which the vehicle experiences
Time (s)
because of higher angle-of-attack requirement to execute a
high amplitude skipping motion. It can therefore be seen
from Figures 11 and 16 that the angle-of-attack increases to
as much as 20 degree during the midcourse phase to ensure
low heat rate trajectory, while maximizing the downrange.
The angle-of-attack trend also shows that at re-entry, the
trim angle-of-attack requirement is higher for sharper entry
angles. High angle-of-attack is necessary to initiate the
skipping motion and to avoid the maximum heat rate
boundary. The high angle-of-attack at reentry also results in
a loss of kinetic energy to drag-force which results in a lower
cumulative heat load and a lower range. The high
angle-of-attack in combination with high dynamic pressure
at initial skipping altitude of approximately 40 km causes

75
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

Figure 13 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat load Figure 15 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat
constraints; altitude vs range (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2, Vb ⬇ 4.3 km/s) load constraints; normal acceleration vs time (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2,
Vb ⬇ 4.3 km/s)
160
Q = 2.325 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
Q = 2.325 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
140 Q = 1.534 GJ/m2
8
Q = 1.534 GJ/m2
Q = 1.162 GJ/m2
120 Q = 1.162 GJ/m2
6

100
Altitude (km)

nz (g)
80
2
60
0
40

−2
20

−4
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Range (km) Time(s)

Figure 14 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat load Figure 16 Boost-glide waverider trajectory for different heat
constraints load constraints; angle-of-attack vs time (Q̇ ⬍ 4 MW/m2,
Vb ⬇ 4.3 km/s)
6
Q = 2.325 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
Heat Rate(MW/m 2)

60
4 Q = 1.534 GJ/m2 Q = 2.325 GJ/m2 (unconstraint)
Q = 1.162 GJ/m2 50 Q = 1.534 GJ/m2

2 Q = 1.162 GJ/m2

40
Angle-of-Attack (deg)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Time (s) 30

(a)
20
400
Dynamic Pressure (kPa)

300 10

200
0
100
−10
0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Time (s)
Time (s)

(b)
The normal acceleration trend can be seen in Figures 10 and
Notes: (a) Heat rate vs time; (b) dynamic pressure vs time ( <
15, which shows that for lower heat load trajectories, the
4 MW/m2, Vb ≈ 4.3 km/s)
vehicle experiences higher normal acceleration peaks,
resulting in more energy loss to drag and, ultimately, lower
range. The normal acceleration experienced by the vehicle
higher lift and therefore a normal acceleration which reaches approximately 8 g value for 50 per cent reduced
initiates and sustains the skipping motion. For total heat integrated heat constraint cases of 0.93 and 1.162 GJ/m2
load constraint of 0.93 GJ/m2 (50 per cent heat load) at
corresponding to burnout speed of 3.7 and 4.3 km/s,
burnout speed of 3.7 km/s, the angle-of-attack saturated to respectively. The normal acceleration peaks are followed by
50-degree value for duration of approximately 10 s, regions where the load factor reduces below one, or even
resulting in loss of speed and initiation of the skipping reduces to zero. Zero load-factor regions imply free-flight
motion. The angle-of-attack trim control requirement conditions. The plot also shows that the vehicle experiences
reduces to 45 degree for the case where the heat load is up to ⫺6 g load during the terminal flight phase.
constrained to 1.25 GJ/m2 (67 per cent heat load), whereas
for the unconstraint heat load case, the angle-of-attack trim
control requirement is approximately 22 degree. Similar Discussion
trend of angle of attack exits at burnout speed of 4.3 km/s For a burnout speed range from 3.7 to 4.3 km/s, and a waverider
and is shown in Figure 16. design-based configurations, the optimal burnout angle is

76
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun
approximately 5 degrees corresponding to a 4 MW/m2, resulting
in a downrange of 3,321 and 4,517 km, respectively. The
stagnation point integrated heat load of the waverider
configuration is approximately 1.86 and 2.33 GJ/m2 at burnout
speeds of 3.7 and 4.3 km/s, respectively, for unconstrained heat
rate bound.
Trajectories with limits on heat rates show that heat rate
bound of 2.5 MW/m2 results in trajectories with 6 per cent
loss in downrange, as compared to optimal trajectories,
corresponding to the stagnation point heat rate bound of
4 MW/m2. The control strategy is also simple, i.e. an initial
heat rate control followed by a dynamic pressure control
which results in a steady optimal trajectory flight path. The
optimal burnout angle of approximately 5 degrees results in an
endo-atmospheric trajectory. Constraining the heat rate
bound results in shallow reentry angles and, therefore, larger
flight time within the atmosphere. As a result, the integrated
heat load is not sensitive to reduction in heat rate bound.
The optimal constrained heat load trajectories for waverider
configuration resulted in trajectories with a higher burnout
angle up to a value of 16 degrees corresponding to burnout
speed of 3.7 km/s and, as a consequence, longer free-flight
range and smaller reentry range/flight time within the
atmosphere; high oscillatory angle-of-attack and, as a result,
high amplitude oscillatory flight in the low density region of
the atmosphere and therefore lesser over all heat load. The
higher angle-of-attack trim also resulted in loss of reentry
range because of loss of kinetic energy to drag force.
Constraint heat load trajectory to the value of 0.93 GJ/m2 (or
50 per cent reduced heat load) at the nose stagnation point,
corresponding to burnout speed of 3.7 km/s resulted in
optimal trajectory design with approximately 6.5 per cent loss
in total downrange. The optimal burnout angle in this case is
15.1 degree for a burnout speed of approximately 3.7 km/s.
Trajectory with 50 per cent reduced heat load at 4.3 km/s
resulted in approximately 8 per cent loss in the maximum
downrange at an optimal burnout angle of 12.5 degree. The
normal acceleration increases to approximately 8-g value as
compared to a 4-g value for nominal trajectory, but stays
within 15 g theoretical limit generally considered acceptable
for missiles. It was observed that tighter bounds on heat rates
and integrated heat loads resulted in higher angle-of-attack
control requirements.
Conclusion
The problem of optimal trajectory design for a boost-glide
vehicle has been considered for burnout speed range of
3.7-4.3 km/s with heat rate, and integrated heat load
constraint. Trajectory design was optimized by numerically
solving a multiphase non-linear optimal control problem using
hp-adaptive pseudospectral method with the objective to
compute the best burnout conditions, as well as optimal
control deflections during the reentry/glide phase for
maximum downrange performance.
It has been shown that for the vehicles under consideration,
and constraint heat rate trajectories resulted in low burnout
angles within the range of 2.2-5.2 degree and therefore higher
integrated heat load because of endo-atmospheric trajectories.
The constraint heat load trajectories, on the other hand,
resulted in higher burnout angles of as high as 16 degree,
77
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78
which ensued lower flight time within the atmosphere along
with skipping motion, and therefore, lower integrated heat
loads. It has been shown that the integrated heat load can be
reduced by 50 per cent with less than 10-per cent loss in the
overall downrange of the vehicle in comparison to the
unbounded heat load profile and a 4 MW/m2 heat rate bound
for the launch and the waverider reentry vehicle under
consideration.
References
Anderson, J.D. Jr. (1989), “Hypersonic and high temperature
gas dynamics”, Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas
Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book, New York, NY.
Bertin, J.J. (1994), “Hypersonic aerothermodynamics”,
Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics, AIAA Education Series,
Washington, DC.
Betts, J.T. (1998), “Survey of numerical methods for
trajectory optimization”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-207.
Carbon-Carbon Composites (2014), “Carbon fibres, carbon-
polymer composites and carbon-carbon composites”,
available at: www.mse.mtu.edu/~drjohn/my4150/class14/class
14.html
Crockrell, C.E., Huebner, L.D. and Finley, D.B. (1995),
“Aerodynamic performance and flow field characteristics of
two wave-rider derived hypersonic cruise vehicles”, AIAA
33rd Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper,
Reno, NV, pp. 95-0736.
Darby, C.L. and Rao, A.V (2011), “Minimum-fuel
low-earth-orbit aeroassisted orbital transfer of small
spacecraft”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 48 No. 4.
Eggers, A.J., Allen, J. and Neice, S. (1955), “A comparitive
analysis of the long range hyper velocity vehicles”, NACA
Research Memorendum, National Advisory Comittee for
Aeronautics, Washington DC.
Garg, D., Patterson, M.A., Hager, W.W., Rao, A.V.,
Benson, D.A. and Huntington, G.T. (2010), “A United
framework for the numerical solution of optimal control
problems using pseudospectral methods”, Automatica,
Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 1843-1851.
Gogu, C., Matsumura, T., Haftka, R.T. and Rao, A.V.
(2009), “Aeroassisted orbital transfer trajectory
optimization considering thermal protection system mass”,
Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 2a.
He, L. (2002), Solid Ballistic Missile Design, BUAA Press.
Hull, D.G. and Speyer, J.L. (1982), “Optimal reentry and
plane change trajectories”, The Journal of Astronautical
Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 117-130.
Josselyn, S. and Ross, I.M. (2003), “A rapid verification
method for the trajectory optimization of reentry vehicles”,
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 505-508.
Li, Y. (2009), “Optimal attack trajectory for hypersonic boost
glide missile in maximum reachable domain”, IEEE
International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation,
IEEE, Changchun.
Li, Y., Cui, N. and Rang, S. (2009), “Trajectory optimization
for hypersonic boost glide missile considering aeroheating”,
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 81,
pp. 3-13.
 Hypersonic boost-glide waverider Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi, He Linshu and Xu Dajun Volume 87 · Number 1 · 2015 · 67–78

NASIC (2006), “Ballistic and cruise missile threat”, United
States Air Force.
Parish-II, M.S. (1995), Optimality of Aeroassisted Orbital Plane
Changes, Naval Post graduate School Monterey, CA.
Rao, A.V. (2011), “User’s manual for GPOPS version 4.0”.
Rea, J. (2003), “Launch vehicle trajectory optimization using
a legendre pseudospectral method”, AIAA Paper
2003-5640.
Rizvi, S., Islam, T., He, H. and Nasimullah, M. (2013),
“Vehicle performance tradeoff study of small size lifting
re-entry vehicle”, 10th International Bhurban Conference on
Applied Sciences & Technology, National Centre for Physics,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Sanger, E. and Bred, J. (1944), “A rocket drive for long range
bombers”, Tech Information Branch, Navy Department.
Scott, C.D., Ried, R.C., Maraia, R.J., Li, C.P. and
Derry, S.M. (1985). “An AOTV aeroheating and thermal
protection study”, in Nelson, H.F. (Ed.), Thermal Design of
Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle, Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, New York, p. 96.
Stevens, R. and Ross, I.M. (2003), “Preliminary design of
earth-mars cyclers using solar sails”, American
Astronautical Society, AAS Paper 03-574.
Strizzi, J., Ross, I.M. and Fahroo, F. (2002), “Towards
real-time computation of optimal controls for nonlinear
systems”, AIAA Paper 2002-4945.
Whitmore, S.A. and Dunbar, B.J. (2003), “Orbital space
plane: past, present, and future”, IAA/ICAS International
Air and Space Symposium and Exposition, Dayton, OH.
Whitmore, S.A., Banks, D.W., Andersen, B.M. and
Jolley, P.R. (2006), “Direct-entry, aerobraking, and lifting
aerocapture for human-rated lunar return vehicles”, 44th
AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-1033,
Reno, NV.
Zimmermann, F. and Calise, A.J. (1998), “Numerical
optimization study of aeroassisted orbital transfer”, Journal
of Guidance Control and Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 127-133.
Further reading
Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) (2011),
“Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2)”,
available at: www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-41-
htv-2.html
Corresponding author
S. Tauqeer ul Islam Rizvi can be contacted at:
rizvi.aeng@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

78

View publication stats