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

net/publication/271366833

Structural Analysis of the LAPCAT-MR2 Waverider Based Vehicle

Conference Paper · April 2011

DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-2336

CITATIONS READS

10 460

2 authors, including:

Johan Steelant
European Space Agency
294 PUBLICATIONS   2,535 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Hexafly-Int View project

Automated Transfer Vehicle Reentry Flow and Explosion Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Steelant on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference AIAA 2011-2336
11 - 14 April 2011, San Francisco, California

Structural Analysis of the LAPCAT-MR2

Waverider Based Vehicle

J. Steelant1 and M. van Duijn2

ESA-ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, Noordwijk, Netherlands

Classical weight correlations functions elaborated for high-speed wing-body vehicles are
assessed to check their credibility when applied to waverider vehicle architectures. First a
literature survey is carried out to compare the effectiveness of these empirical correlations
against more detailed structural studies for waveriders based on analytical or Finite Element
analysis. Furthermore, three different methods, i.e. an empirical, analytical and finite
element analysis, are applied to specific waverider concepts within the LACPAT II
framework program. This study allows whether each of these methods can be used to
estimate in a first conceptual phase the dry structural weight of waverider based vehicle
concepts. This credibility in dry mass estimation is essential to assess the performance and
feasibility of hypersonic vehicle designs.

Nomenclature
ATR = Air Turbo Rocket
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
CMC = Ceramic Matrix Composite (C/C-Sic)
DOF = Degrees Of Freedom
DMR = Dual-Mode Ramjet
EC = European Commission
FE = Finite Element
FEA = Finite Element Analysis
GTOW = Gross Take Off Weight
LAPCAT = Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concept and Technologies
L/D = Lift over Drag ratio
LE = Leading Edge
RJ = Ramjet
SJ = SCRamjet
TBCC = Turbo Based Combined Cycles
TPS = Thermal Protection System
TSTO = Two Stage To Orbit
WAATS = Weights Analysis of Advanced Transportation Systems
a = semi major axis (ellipse)
b = semi minor axis (ellipse)
r = radius of the wing-body
 = intersection angle pillow tanks
ρ = density

1
PhD, Senior Research Engineer, ESTEC-ESA, Aerothermodynamics and Propulsion Analysis Section TEC-MPA,
P.O. Box 299, Noordwijk, Netherlands, AIAA Member.
2
B.Sc, Stress Engineer, ESA-ESTEC, presently at AOES Netherlands BV, Aircraft Group, zip code: 2201 DK,
Noordwijk, Netherlands.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2011 by J. Steelant, M. van Duijn. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 I. Introduction

L APCAT II is a follow-up of the previous EC-project LAPCAT I. The objective is to design different vehicle
concepts enabling the potential reduction of antipodal flight times to about 4 hours and to develop the critical
technologies and know-how to realize this ambitious goal. Among the several studied vehicles in LAPCAT I, only
two concepts were retained for further evaluation in LAPCAT II: one for Mach 5 and a one for Mach 8 cruise
flights.
As the Mach 5 concept had a higher maturity in its conceptual design, it was retained for the next phase of
LAPCAT. The same level of maturity could not be achieved for the Mach 8 vehicle as the iterative design loop had
to shift from a RBCC towards a TBCC cycle to guarantee a long range capability. Moreover, as the Mach 8 vehicle
is intrinsically a highly integrated design and its performance much dependent on its architecture, it was decided to
let different LAPCAT II teams propose different concepts. ESA-ESTEC opted to pursue a dorsal mounted engine in
combination with a volumetrically efficient waverider. Methodologies involved in the design of LAPCAT-MR1
were described previously[2]. Within LAPCAT II, different evolutions of this concept were proposed but they all
have an inward turning, highly 3D intake in combination with a highly integrated nozzle. This is in contrast with a
simple 2D intake and a SERN-based nozzle of the MR1 design. This fully integrated vehicle is known as the
LAPCAT-MR2 aiming for a 300 passenger capacity and a range of about 20,000 km. The fuel used is liquid
hydrogen with a combined propulsion unit comprising of an Air Turbo Rocket (ATR) and a Dual-Mode Ramjet
(DMR).

Preliminary parametric studies within the LAPCAT II project have shown that a Mach 8 vehicle concept based on
liquid hydrogen fuel with a long-haul range is potentially achievable. However, confidence and credibility when
proposing a fully integrated vehicle that complies with the mission goals is largely dependent on validated advanced
design tools to provide quick aerodynamic, propulsion, structural and trajectory data. In particular weight estimates
are very crucial at this phase of the study and small variations can lead to large errors in trajectory assessment.
During the preliminary feasibility studies, it became apparent that the engineering tools related to structural weights
for hypersonic vehicles and their propulsion components are not well established, in particular when designs differ
from classical wing-body configurations.

This paper presents the structural analysis based on empirical, analytical and finite element analysis to perform
an assessment of the credibility of the weight correlation functions. Iterative developed versions of the LAPCAT-
MR2 are used for the structural analysis in terms of empirical & analytical weight estimations (MR2.2) and a finite
element analysis (MR2.3).

II. Empirical Weight Breakdown

The weight breakdown of the LAPCAT-MR2.2 vehicle (see Figure 1) is based upon weight correlations for the
different subsystems. The correlations used are based upon WAATS: a computer program for Weights Analysis of
Advanced Transportation Systems[9]. The WAATS method, set-up in 1974 and based on the available technologies
and materials of that time, allows adapting the parameters to include later developments in e.g. newer materials,
technologies, etc. The correlations have been based on a statistical analysis of weight data mainly for high-speed
supersonic vehicle configurations. The similarity laws applied provide the best-fit correlations based upon actually
built vehicles and components or at least designed in great detail. This includes e.g. airframes and subsystems of
supersonic fighters, cryogenic tanks of the X-15 or the Saturn I to V, etc. The following subsystems have been
assessed for the weight analysis:

 aerodynamic surfaces: wings and control surfaces: WSURF

 body structure: WBODY
 Thermal Protection System (TPS): WTPS
 take-off and landing gear: WGEAR
 propulsion: engines and tanks: WPROPU
 control units: WORNT
 power supply: WPWRSY
 payload: WPAYLOAD

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 1: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Layout as used for empirical structural analysis

The resulting GTOW is estimated to be 400.4 tons with a landing weight of 208.4 tons. The consumed fuel during
flight mounts up to 192 tons. The weight breakdown for the different subsystems is given in Figure 2 and Figure 3
respectively for the landing and take-off conditions. A predefined payload including cabin, passenger, luggage, crew
equivalent to 60tons and 1400m3 was imposed as vehicle requirement.
The propulsion subsystem consists of multiple components including tanks, engines, insulations… Its
breakdown is given in Table 1. The insulation weights WINSFT and WINSOT are to prevent excessive boil-off for
the cryogenic tanks. The ATR weight is evaluated by individual component weight estimation leading to an installed
weight of 6,700 kg resulting in a total weight of 33,500 kg for the 5 engines. Note that tank insulation weights and
the thermal protection system weight WTPS of 7,819kg are evaluated separately within WAATS.

Propulsion Description Mass ATR-item Description Mass

item [kg] [kg]
WABENG Dual mode Ramjet Engine Fan-Turbine Unit Fan, turbine, gear
3,089 4,631
mass
WATR Total mass of ATR Engines box, pumps, gas
33,500
(x5)
WFUNCT Fuel Tank mass 20,272 generator, shafts
WOXCNT Oxidiser Tank mass 439 Nacelle Fan, ducts… 1,445
WINSFT Fuel Tank insulation 2,658 supports
WINSOT Oxidiser Tank insulation 44 Accessories Cooling, tubing 625
WINLET Intake ramp and control 1,318 interface
WPROPU Total Propulsion mass 61,321 Total mass ATR 1 unit 6,700
Table 1: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Overall propulsion mass breakdown and detailed breakdown for one ATR-unit

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 2: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Landing weight (mass) breakdown [kg]

Figure 3: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – GTOW (mass) breakdown [kg]

III. Analytical Weight Breakdown

In order to verify whether the structural weight estimations of WAATS can be applied to waveriders or all-body
configurations, a literature survey was performed in order to justify the above mentioned values for the structural
components. Two sources performed a detailed structural analysis and a related optimization for vehicle layouts
applicable to waveriders, namely:

- Heinze, Kossira and Bardenhagen[5]

- Ardema[4]

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A. Heinze, Kossira and Bardenhagen
Heinze, Kossira and Bardenhagen performed a structural analysis by means of both an analytical and finite
element approach for a hydrogen powered TSTO vehicle staging at Mach 6.5. They evaluated and compared both a
blended body and a waverider concept. The structural loads on the main vehicle are particularly large and
demanding for the main vehicle as the orbiter (second stage) is attached externally on the leeward side of the first
stage. This is not the case for the present LAPCAT concept. Nevertheless, the structural weight was only 86.8tons
(21.2%) for a GTOW of 409.7 tons and a wing loading of 180kg/m2.
This loading is comparable to the 193kg/m2 of the LAPCAT-MR2. They highlighted also that the structure
could be reduced to 17.9% of the GTOW by reducing the waverider layout and planform even further corresponding
to a 232kg/m2 wing loading. This came at the cost of an L/D reduction from 6.5 to 6.1 but with an overall better
performance[6].

B. Ardema
Ardema investigated four different structural concepts for a wing-body and an all-body configuration, both
conceived as a Mach 7 hydrogen powered cruiser. The studied concepts were:
- non-integral tanks and hot structures which is frame stabilized with integrally Z-stiffened Ni-Alloy shells;
- non-integral tanks and cold structures which is frame stabilized with integrally Z-stiffened Aluminium shells;
- pressure-stabilized integral tanks and cold structures which is frame stabilized with integrally Z-stiffened
Aluminium shells;
- pressure-stabilized integral tanks with a hot structure based on a truss-core sandwich Ti-Alloy shell or pillow
(multi-lobes) tankage structure.
Whereas non-integral tanks resulted in large structural weight factors of about 70%, the integrated multi-lobe
tank structure clearly demonstrated a large potential in structural weight fraction reduction of about 25%. This
structural concept was chosen at first for performing a structural analysis. For the wing-body configurations, the
total weight fractions are less sensitive to the structural concept chosen. They varied from ~35% for a non-integral
design towards ~25% for an integrated design.
The vehicle weight of a slender vehicle such as a waverider is primarily determined by the longitudinal bending
moments. However, the large span inherent to slender bodies such as waveriders might determine the wing or body
weights due to the transverse bending moments. Both moments have been considered in the analysis described
below.
The importance of different loads due to a manoeuvre, a dynamic gust condition and a dynamic landing were
evaluated[4]. The nominal load design criteria for the three loading conditions were:
- 2.5g load factor manoeuvre;
- 3m/s sink speed landing;
- 15m/s vertical gust.
The 2.5g load factor manoeuvre was demonstrated to be the most demanding load case and was retained here for
the study. This load depends largely on differences in longitudinal weight distribution within the body. Therefore the
nominal vehicle weight was taken as the gross take-off weight with deflected canards producing negative lift (-
34kN) at the front. The other applied forces were:
- lift forces are distributed uniformly over wing (193kg/m^2) and body (129kg/m^2)
- body and fuel weight is distributed approximately linearly with the cross section area
- control surfaces, landing gear and propulsion weights are treated as point loads
- payload (60ton) is distributed uniformly between 38m and 84m keeping the cog at 60m from the leading
edge
- pressurized internal structure was set at 100kPa for both the tankage and payload.
The pressurization of the tanks needs to be iterated with the propulsion system. A lower loading requires a
heavier turbo pack but will probably still lead to a lower overall weight. The thermal conditions for the external
surfaces were however taken at cruise for the thermal protection requirements. Vehicle loading was determined by a
station-to-station analysis. The longitudinal body stiffness was evaluated at 47 equidistant lateral cross-sections
which included the loads and moments generated by the canards and wings. Four of these sections are depicted in
Figure 4. The wing stiffness was evaluated at 24 longitudinal sections to evaluate the lateral stiffness (see Figure 5).

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 4: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Cross sectional views at 22m, 36m, 46m and 64m from LE

Figure 5: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Wing cross sectional views at 4.8m and 10.4m from wing root

The stiffness of the cross sections was evaluated analytically based on an integrated multi-lobe structure (pillow)
as depicted in Figure 6 and described in detail[4]. The number of internal webs and cells was based upon selection of
geometrical parameters which, based on a general rule, provided near optimal internal volume and structural weight.
An ultimate tensile strength of 300MPa for C/C-Sic and a density of ρ=1,900kg/m3, was applied. This analysis
provided the geometrical layout of the internal cells, the web and shell thicknesses for each station from which the
total exposed surface, volume and weight can be determined. Webs and shells thicknesses at a particular station are
uniformly distributed due to the analytical limitation to optimally redistribute the wall thickness ideally within each
section. The ideal weight for the body and wing structure results respectively in 29,059kg and 5,362kg.

Figure 6: Cross sectional view of multi-lobe internal structural geometry

The non-optimum weight due to cut-outs, surface attachments, uniform gage penalties, manufacturing
constraints, fasteners, margins, etc. is determined by an empirical law based on the evaluated ideal weight and
surface area:

W NI  1.64W ID  0.38 AS

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
where WNI is the non-optimum weight, WID the ideal weight and AS to structural surface. This increases the weight
for body and wing to WBODY=36,047kg and WSURF=13,083kg respectively. The bulkhead weight and
peripherals for the integral tanks amounts to 4,008kg.
The thermal insulation thickness was determined for both a wet and dry tank on the basis of the transient thermal
analysis described by Ardema[8]. If the surface temperature of the internal tankage is limited to 360K (allowing e.g.
use of Aluminium instead of CMC for the webs), the average insulation thickness needed is 12.5cm. This
corresponds to 28,262kg of insulation with 4,677kg to account for stand-offs and other items.
The total TPS weight amounts then to WTPS=32,939kg. However, this is a conservative approach as certain
tanks can be depleted at a earlier stag during the mission. This fuel management will limit the require insulation
thickness. A high temperature alloy for the internal tankage could reduce this weight considerably. This insulation
weight covers both the insulation weight required for the cryogenic tankage in body and wing. The latter is
incorporated as a safety margin in case wing tankage would be needed for the fuel. This seems unnecessary for the
studied configuration.
The integrated design based on a structural analysis amounts now to 86,073kg which includes the pure structure,
the propulsion tankage and TPS (Figure 7). Based on WAATS, these numbers were respectively 65,459kg,
23,413kg and 7,819kg or a total of 96,691kg. Note however that the tank and its insulation weight have now been
allocated to the TPS, whereas previously it was part of the overall propulsion system weight. This brings the
WPROPU from 61,320kg down to 37,907kg, including now only the weights of the ATRs, the intake and DMR.
The weight of the tanks is now included in the body and the wing structure weights.

Figure 7: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – Landing weight (mass) breakdown [kg] – Ardema (structure and TPS)

Globally, the structural evaluation leads to a weight reduction of 10,618kg or 11%. A part of this (now
considered reserve) has been re-allocated to the landing gear which has increased now to 12,000kg or 3% of the
GTOW as can been seen in Figure 8. Hence an analytical margin of 7,260kg is left over. As part of the vehicle
requirements, there is a double weight accounting embedded with respect to the payload. The passenger's cabin
which is partly included as internal pressurized volume within the present structural architecture where an extra gain
of maximum 7,000kg can be obtained resulting from the cabins structural shell requirements. Also the propulsion
unit contains weight fractions which are actually part of the structure, i.e. intake, nozzle… which amounts to about
5,000kg. This gain in structural weight is mainly due to the integrated design, a wing root thickness much larger
than a classical wing-body configuration and the overall layout of the vehicle having a lower slenderness than a
classical waverider. Further improvement can be realized by shaping the generic cross-section towards a structurally
efficient vehicle without compromising aerodynamic and volumetric efficiency[10].

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 8: LAPCAT-MR2.2 – GTOW (mass) breakdown [kg] – Ardema (structure and TPS)

In Figure 9 three different concepts, evolving from a slender to an elliptical cross-section shape, towards this
objective are shown: the black was the starting layout, the second layout (blue) showed already a better structural
efficiency. The third version (red) evolved towards an optimal combination of aerodynamic, structural and
volumetric efficiency. This last version has been selected for a finite element analysis to verify the needed structural
weight.

Figure 9: Three waverider layouts without the propulsion integration. Black: starting design MR2.1; second
version MR2.2 (blue): higher structural efficiency; third version (red): improved layout MR2.3

IV. Weight Breakdown based on Finite Element Analysis

According to the literature, an integral design is a prerequisite as structural architecture. Hence the multi-lobe
internal structural geometry as depicted in Figure 6 is further on used as a basis. Since the optimal layout is the third
concept version as shown in the previous section, the LAPCAT-MR2.3 is chosen for the structural finite element
analysis[1] in this section. Body and wing are ‘separated’ in this due to creation of the pillow tanks in both parts. For
the FE analysis a symmetric model has been made with 47 equidistant lateral cross-sections, representing the body
stations and 24 longitudinal sections representing the wing stations as shown in Figure 10. The layout and position
of the pillow tanks in the wing for example is shown in Figure 11. Remark that no stiffening elements like spars,
frames and longerons are used in this FE model. The material used throughout the FE model is CMC.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 10: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – FE global mesh model (symmetric) – Isometric view

Figure 11: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – Total wing fit – Pillow tanks (yellow) & Outer wing surface (green) – Isometric
view
The FE-analysis is based on a globally coarse mesh where the elements have typically a size of 1m x 1m. This
limits detailed structural analysis and optimization. Results of the FE analysis give a rough estimate of the occurring
stress levels and deformations at the given loads in the take-off and cruise flight conditions. As a consequence of
global mesh modelling the results are to be assessed and interpreted as such. Linear static analysis with inertia relief
(free-free) and a modal analysis are performed. As can be seen in Figure 12 and Figure 13 some areas show high
stresses (>300MPa).
The stresses are plotted with a manual setting of the scale in the legend with respect to the allowable
yield/tension stress of CMC (=300MPa). This is useful for showing areas where the stress level is critical, which is
indeed evident at certain points. These locations are somewhat overstressed, which is more a result of a lack of
stiffening and or a possibility of unintentionally high loaded part.
Since the stress level at certain stations is rather high one could redistribute the available wall thickness along the
periphery of the station. To assess whether the thickness can increase or decrease without augmenting the available
station’s mass, one can take an averaged based stress value by taking the corresponding elements defined in that
station. As an example the body station 35 will be discussed next.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 12: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – FE global mesh model – Take-off condition – Von Mises stress contour plot
[Pa] – View 1

Figure 13: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – FE global mesh model – Take-off condition – Von Mises stress contour plot
[Pa] – View 2

In Figure 14 the Plate Top von Mises contour plot of a part of the body is shown with a depiction of station 35
on the right. The stresses denoted in these figures are used to determine the average stress of the elements defined at
the web, lobe-arc and outer skin locations. With the introduction of a weight factor, determined as the ratio of the
surface area of an item to the total surface area of all these items, the specific average stress is calculated. This takes
into account the size and hence the influence of the stress level of each separate item with respect to its surface area.
This procedure has been conducted for all outer skin surface areas and all tank lobe-arc & web areas within
station 35. The average stress is then multiplied with a factor proportional to their relative area ratio. All factorized
averaged stresses of all items are summed up, which forms the average stress based on a surface area weighted
factor. This procedure calculates a maximum overall average stress of 283MPa.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 From this one can state that the high stress levels can be lowered by cleverly distributing the plate thickness over
a station in further optimization loops.

Station 35

Figure 14: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – Take-off condition – Von Mises stress contour plot for Body (left) and Body
station 35 separately (right)

Due to the anisotropic material properties of CMC materials, the maximum shear stress can be easily a factor 10
lower than the tensile strength. Figure 15 illustrates that the entire architecture experiences little shear XY shear
stresses (most elements are in the range of 15-30 MPa).

Figure 15: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – FE global mesh model – Take-off condition – Plate XY shear stress contour
plot [Pa] – General view

Finally, to better understand the vibrational modes and amplitudes, a mode shape deformation plot of the total
vehicle is shown in Figure 16. The large deformation near the leading edge of the intake is a result of having no
stiffening elements at this location and hence can be easily solved It should rather be considered as potentially
critical in terms of induced dynamic effects on the intake flow..

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 16: LAPCAT–MR2.3 – FE global mesh model – Mode shape@1.3Hz – Deformation plot [m] – General
view

In general the overall stress intensity is in line with expectations considering the setup of the FE analysis, with its
assumptions and limitations. The high stress areas are potential optimization areas and can be accommodated by
clever redistribution of wall thicknesses along the vehicle without compromising the overall vehicle mass.
Moreover, there are still some areas which are over-dimensioned and can be accounted for as extra margins.
The overall weight breakdown is depicted below in Figure 17 and Figure 18 for the landing weight and GTOW
respectively. As certain parts of the installed propulsion mass, i.e. ducts, intake ramps, nozzle etc, are now
considered within the integrated waverider structure and hence the finite element analysis, these fractions have to be
taken out in the mass breakdown of the propulsion part (ATR in particular see Table 1). The propulsive mass has
therefore been lowered to 27,478kg corresponding now mainly to intake mechanisms and ATR-engines (engine
mounts of 882kg previously allocated to the body structure have been added along with some other minor items).

Figure 17: LAPCAT-MR2.3 – Landing weight (mass) breakdown [kg] – FE analysis

The pure structural mass accounts for about 63,000kg. Including TPS, landing gear and other peripherals, one
obtains a dry mass without propulsion of 113,105kg or 28.2% of GTOW. Including propulsion the dry mass ends up
with 140,583kg or 35% of GTOW. One should be aware the part of the structural component of the payload is

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
already embedded in the overall structure. Hence the payload of 60tons should be reduced with about 7,000kg and to
be introduced as an extra margin to the overall design. One should remarks that the required fuel to accomplish the
mission was increased from 192tons (MR2.2) to 200tons (MR2.3).

Figure 18: LAPCAT-MR2.3 – GTOW (mass) breakdown [kg] – FE analysis

IX. Conclusion
Considering the outcome of the required structural weight, based either on an analytical or finite element
analysis, one can state now that the empirical WAATS correlations are providing rather realistic weight estimations
for waveriders. A similar observation was already made in the past by Bardenhagen and Heinze[5], [6].

WAATS [kg] Analytical (Ardema) [kg] Finite Element [kg]

Body 48,586 40,056 47,488
Wing 16,873 13,084 15,512
1
TPS 7,819 32,933 32,9331
Propulsion 61,3201 37,907 37,907

Total 134,598 123,980 133,840

Relative 100% 92.11% 99.44%
1. includes insulation for tanks
Table 2: Comparison of three methodologies for weight estimates of a waverider based vehicle

The literature survey also made clear that this can only be achieved by use of integral tank-airframe design.
Taking into account the assumptions made and the way the FE model has been set up, the average stress is in line
with the expectations. The areas that show high stresses can be alleviated by a dedicated optimization exercise
without any structural mass penalty. Further improvement and optimization of this model with the recommendations
given will improve the results with respect to stress levels.

X. Acknowledgments
The development part of the work was performed within the ‘Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and
Technologies II’ project investigating high-speed transport. LAPCAT II, coordinated by ESA-ESTEC, is supported
by the EU within the 7th Framework Programme Theme 7 TRANSPORT, Contract no.: ACP7-GA-2008-21 1485.
Further info on LAPCAT II can be found on http://www.esa.int/techresources/lapcat_II.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 We greatly appreciate the careful reading of this article along with the constructive suggestions made by Dr. N.
Murray.

XI. References

[1]. J. Steelant, M. van Duijn, Structural Analysis of the LAPCAT-MR2 Waverider based Vehicle, Technical Report
LAPCAT II D3.1.4 part B revision 10, ESA-ESTEC, March 2010;

[2]. N. Murray and J. Steelant, Methodologies involved in the Design of LAPCAT-MR1: a Hypersonic Cruise Passenger
Vehicle, AIAA 16th AIAA/DLR/DGLR International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies
Conference, October 19-22, 2009, Bremen, Germany, AIAA-2009-7399.

[3]. N. Murray, J. Steelant and M. De Rosa, Preliminary Mach 8 Turbo-Based /DMR Vehicle Analysis.: Conceptual Design
of a Dorsal-Type Vehicle: LAPCAT-MR2, Technical Report LAPCAT II D3.1.4 issue 1 vers. 5, ESA-ESTEC, June
2009;

[4]. M. D. Ardema, Structural Weight Analysis of Hypersonic Aircraft, Technical Report TN D-6692, NASA, 1972;

[5]. A. Bardenhagen, H. Kossira and W. Heinze, Weight Estimation of Hypersonic Waveriders within the Integrated Design
Program Prado-Hy, AIAA 96-4546, 1996;

[6]. W. Heinze and A. Bardenhagen, Waverider Aerodynamics and Preliminary Design for Two-Stage-to-Orbit Missions,
Part 2. J. of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 35, No. 4, July-August 1998;

[7]. M. Bouchez, Preliminary Mach 8 rocket-based /DMR vehicle analysis, Technical Report LAPCAT II D3.1.6 vers. 3,
MBDA, 2009;

[8]. M. D. Ardema, Minimum Weight Passive Insulation Requirements for Hypersonic Cruise Vehicles. AIAA Journal, Vol.
10., No. 7, 1972;

[9]. C. R. Glatt, WAATS - A Computer Program for Weights Analysis of Advanced Transportation Systems, Technical
Report NASA CR-2420, NASA, Sept. 1974.

[10]. N. Murray, J. Steelant and A. Mack, Design Evolution for Highly Integrated Hypersonic Vehicles, Space Propulsion
2010, San Sebastian, Spain, 3-6 May 2010.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats