JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS

Vol. 41, No. 5, September–October 2004

Optimal Conceptual Design of Two-Stage Reusable Rocket

Vehicles Including Trajectory Optimization
Takeshi Tsuchiya∗
University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
and
Takashige Mori†
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Tokyo 182-8522, Japan

Many candidate concepts of reusable space transportation vehicles have been proposed around the world. This
paper applies an optimization method for conceptual designs of winged fully reusable rocket two-stage-to-orbit
(TSTO) vehicles in both horizontal takeoff and vertical launch styles. We first describe our methods for analyzing
vehicle design. Then we integrate those methods into the optimization problem, the solution of which yields the
minimized parameter, defined as the total gross weight of the first-stage booster and the second-stage orbiter. This
information allows us to determine the optimal vehicle configuration and flight trajectory for a highly feasible
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082

TSTO vehicle. The optimal solutions show the necessity of lightening and miniaturizing components. Vertical
launch vehicles are lighter in total gross weight than horizontal takeoff vehicles. In addition to optimizing vehicle
configuration, this study also optimizes ascent and return trajectories. These optimizations enable the booster to
glide back to the launch site without propellant, despite the long downrange path from the staging point of the
ascent trajectory.

Introduction tion Investigation Programme4 and initiated the Future Launchers

T O support the advancement of space activities in the 21st cen-
tury, for example, scientific studies, commercial enterprises,
and manned missions, there is an urgent need to develop new types
of space transportation systems. Such systems must combine flexi-
bility, reliability, low cost, and good operability for access to space,
at levels that existing transports can hardly achieve. Reusable trans-
portation systems are identified as a promising technology. Indeed,
many researchers recognize that a key to advancing space develop-
ment is the replacement of expendable rockets with reusable space
transportation systems.
In Japan, a series of successes in launching the present mainstay
rocket, H-IIA, has inspired active public interest in next-generation
technologies. Japan’s National Aerospace Laboratory has taken the
lead nationally in the study of winged horizontal takeoff and landing
spaceplanes with new types of airbreathing engines running at hy-
personic speed.1 Various types of engines have also been studied.2
Japan’s Institute of Space and Astronautical Science has flight tested
a small vertical launch and landing test vehicle equipped with a
liquid-hydrogen rocket engine.3 In June 2000 the Committee on Fu-
ture Space Transportation Systems established within Japan’s Sci-
ence and Technology Agency, defined a new direction for Japan’s
space transportation systems in the 21st century: an incremental
research and development program whose final goal is a single-
stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spaceplane, with an interim fully reusable
two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) spaceplane in a few decades.1 On the
basis of that directive, Japan has begun conceptual studies of TSTO
systems. In other countries the United States is working on the Space
Launch Initiative program to develop next-generation space launch-
ers as a replacement for the space shuttle. The European Space
Agency has established the Future European Space Transporta-
Received 9 March 2003; revision received 26 August 2003; accepted for
publication 26 August 2003. Copyright  c 2003 by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of this paper
may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay
the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rose-
wood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0022-4650/04 $10.00 in
correspondence with the CCC.
∗ Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics; tsuchiya@
mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp. Member AIAA.
† Senior Researcher, Future Space Transportation Center, Chofu. Member
AIAA.
770
Technologies Programme5 to identify a technically sound and cost-
effective reusable or semireusable launcher to succeed Ariane 5.
Conceptual designs of space launch vehicles cannot be conducted
without the cooperation of numerous disciplines, including sev-
eral analysis technologies: aerodynamics analysis, heating analysis,
structural analysis, propulsion analysis, trajectory analysis, controls
analysis, cost analysis, operations analysis, and so on. Inasmuch as
the frontiers of the present technologies can make a reusable space
transportation system feasible, it is necessary to make good use of the
analysis technologies in the various disciplines and to apply design
optimization techniques. The application of optimization methods to
multidisciplinary analysis is referred to as multidisciplinary design
optimization (MDO).6 Advances in computing have yielded many
practical MDO methods, which have been applied widely from com-
ponent design to overall design of aircraft and space transportation
vehicle concepts.7 Design tools have been proposed, which has in-
tegrated computer software for preliminary designs of the space
transportation systems.8,9 Some researchers have made compara-
tive studies of the systems from their specialties, for example, Koelle
made a cost comparison of an SSTO vehicle concept with TSTO ve-
hicle concepts.10 Miele and Mancuso optimized ascent trajectories
for single-stage-suborbit and TSTO rocket-powered vehicles. The
maximum payload weight problem was studied for different val-
ues of the engine specific impulse and spacecraft structural factor.11
Mehta and Bowles made comparative studies of the TSTO vehicles
with the airbreathing engines on the first stage.12 The first author
in this paper also studied the simultaneous optimization of vehicle
sizes and flight trajectories for SSTO spaceplanes.13
The purpose of this paper is to integrate analysis models for the
conceptual design of winged TSTO vehicles with an optimization
method. The TSTO vehicles in this paper use only rocket propul-
sion and are classified as either the horizontal takeoff and landing
style or the vertical launch and horizontal landing style. These two
styles of vehicle, with their different payload capabilities, are both
optimized in the same manner for the sake of comparison. Trajec-
tory optimization is one of the characteristics of the optimization
problems in this paper. Rather than basing ascent and return flight
trajectories on supposed guidance laws, we optimize three-degree-
of-freedom trajectories themselves, in addition to optimizing the
other design parameters. The results show examples of the optimal
winged fully reusable TSTO vehicles.
 TSUCHIYA AND MORI 771

Analysis Method and Optimization Problem

Figure 1 shows the shape of the TSTO vehicle in this study. The
vehicle is made up of a first-stage booster and a second-stage or-
biter. This figure also indicates parameters of vehicle component
dimensions. Table 1 shows the design variables that we have to op-
timize: flight performance parameters and flight trajectory variables
as well as the geometric parameters shown in Fig. 1. One of the fea-
tures of this study is that we optimize ascent and return trajectories.
This is the reason why the design variables contain state and control
variables of the flight trajectories.
Figure 2 shows the overall analysis process. If we give the weight
and volume of payloads to/from orbit and a set of values for the de-
sign variables, each analysis is conducted sequentially, as exhibited
in Fig. 2. Analysis in this paper refers not only to the calculation
of output values for the following analysis based on the values of
design variables and the input values obtained from the preceding
analysis, but it also refers also to the computation of the function
values of equality and inequality constraint conditions (C E and C I in
Fig. 2), which the variables must satisfy. We have integrated analysis
tools in more than one specialized field for automatic computation.
The values we find for design variables must satisfy all of the con-
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082

Fig. 2 Analysis process.

straint conditions. If we cannot obtain unique values, we should find
the best values under given criteria. Thus, we give a performance
index and define an optimization problem. The following summa-
rizes the analysis methods, constraint conditions, and performance
index in the optimization problem.
Table 1 Design variables of vehicle configuration
and flight trajectory
Parameter type Variable
Booster’s geometry (see Fig. 1) l1 , l2 , l3 , D, Cr , Ct , b
Orbiter’s geometry (see Fig. 1) l0 , l1 , l2 , l3 , D, Cr , Ct , b
Flight performance of booster Gross weight
Maximum body normal acceleration
Maximum body axial acceleration
Maximum dynamic pressure
Thrust (vacuum)
Flight performance of orbiter Gross weight
Maximum body normal acceleration
Maximum body axial acceleration
Maximum dynamic pressure
Thrust (vacuum)
Flight trajectory Discretized state variables
Discretized control variables
Initial times of intervals
Terminal times of intervals
Fig. 1 Booster and orbiter layouts.
Vehicle Definition
Both the vertical launch and horizontal takeoff styles of TSTO
vehicle are composed of an orbiter, which can reach orbit and reenter
the atmosphere, and a booster, which is a rocket booster with wings
for either vertical or horizontal takeoff and fly back to the launch site
after the orbiter has separated from it. The orbiter is derived from the
Space Shuttle Orbiter of the United States and HOPE-X14 of Japan.
The orbiter’s nose is blunted to a 0.5 m radius in order to withstand
aerodynamic heating during reentry. The fuselages have nonintegral
tanks for the cryogenic propellant: liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid
hydrogen (LH2). Each tank is composed of a cylinder with dome-
shaped ends. Between the tanks of the orbiter is a cubic payload bay
area. The payload weight and volume requirements are specified in
the problem definition before the optimization is computed. Both the
orbiter and booster have rocket engines installed in the aft fuselage.
Though the number of rocket engines should be one of the design
variables, the optimization method in this paper cannot optimize
the discrete number. Thus, we assign a minimum number on the
condition that the thrust force per engine is less than 1.5 MN because
it is presumed in the weight analysis that a small number of engines
reduces the total engine weight. The wing sections of the booster
and orbiter are NACA0005 and NACA0010, respectively. For lateral
stability the orbiter has a vertical tail fin, but the booster has tip fins
instead because a tail fin would probably have little effect when
the orbiter and booster are attached to each other. Although the
vehicle component sizes are given by the design variables as shown
in Fig. 1, the sizes of the tail fin and tip fins are calculated from the
tail volume of HOPE-X. In addition, the orbiter has a body flap, the
effectiveness of which is equivalent to that of HOPE-X.
The vehicle definition has a surface mesh generator to make pan-
els for the surfaces of both the vehicles from the values of geometric
parameters in the design variables. The coordinate values of the pan-
els, as well as their attribution to either the fuselage or the wings, are
submitted to aerodynamics analysis. The vehicle element sizes that
are not included in the design variables are also calculated because
this information is needed for the weight analysis.
To attain the proper vehicle shape, the vehicle definition com-
putes inequality constraints for the values of geometric parameters.
We also constrain the flight performance parameters of the design
variables so that they are covered by the weight analysis. To be con-
crete, the maximum values of acceleration and dynamic pressure
are subject to the ranges of 2.5–4 G and 15–50 kPa, respectively.
At the same time the trajectory analysis gives the amount of pro-
pellant required by the booster and that required by the orbiter, and
the vehicle definition calculates the tank sizes accordingly. Some
constraint conditions demand that the booster fuselage should be
large enough to hold the tanks and the orbiter fuselage should hold
the tanks and payload bay.
 772 TSUCHIYA AND MORI
Aerodynamics Analysis
The study involves estimating the vehicles’ aerodynamic proper-
ties in the different flowfield regimes that the craft encounter dur-
ing atmospheric flight, which ranges from subsonic to hypersonic
speeds. The aerodynamics analysis incorporates the surface panels
of each vehicle as provided by the vehicle definition and tabulates
lift and drag coefficients for typical angles of attack and Mach num-
bers from subsonic to hypersonic speeds. The trajectory analysis
depends on the aerodynamics analysis, that is, the aerodynamics
analysis sends to the trajectory analysis the results obtained from
interpolation of the values in the tables, and these results are used
to compute the flight trajectories. Another important operation of
the aerodynamics analysis is to evaluate the longitudinal static sta-
bilities from the pitching moments of the vehicles and find the aft
limits of the centers of gravity. We presume that the forward lim-
its, which result fundamentally from maneuverability, are locations
that are 10% of body length forward of the aft limits. The c.g. limits
obtained are given to the weight analysis.
This study employs simple analysis methods. A panel method15
in subsonic flight, the Prandtl–Meyer expansion flow theory, and
a tangent cone/wedge method in supersonic to hypersonic speed
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
are applied to each vehicle. These methods use the surface panels
from the vehicle definition. The methods, however, cannot estimate
parasite drag. Especially, base drag accounts for a large part of the
total drag because a vehicle with rocket engines has a cutoff aft
fuselage. According to Ref. 16, we estimate the base drag of each
vehicle from its base area and the Mach number. In addition, we
compute the skin-friction drag by the sum of the frictions from the
flow velocities on the panels. Transonic aerodynamic forces result
from subsonic and supersonic forces, as explained in Ref. 16.
The simple methods in this study are applicable to each vehicle
separately and not to the coupled vehicle. We presume that the cou-
pled vehicle’s lift force is equal to that of the booster and that its drag
force is the sum of the total drag of the booster and the parasite drag
of the orbiter. Thus, this study does not consider the interference
drag caused by the coupling of the two vehicles.
The methods used in this study are simpler and lower fidelity than
the latest sophisticated computation methods, but they are useful in
that the aerodynamics analysis, by which the optimization process
computes the aerodynamic characteristics repeatedly, needs only
a short computation time. These methods are applied widely to
aerodynamic preliminary analyses of candidate space transportation
vehicles.6,17
Propulsion Analysis
Given a flight altitude by the trajectory analysis, the propul-
sion analysis calculates a thrust force and specific impulse in the
following manner. The rocket engine uses the cryogenic propel-
lant (LOX/LH2). This study considers a conventional rocket engine
given by historical perspective and not a specific engine.
A thrust force Tinf (N) per engine in vacuum is one of the design
variables. According to existing or developed rocket engines, we
presume that a cross-section area of the rocket nozzle exit Ae (m2 )
of the booster and orbiter is proportional to Tinf , as expressed here:
Ae = 2.771 × 10−6 Tinf (1)
This means that each rocket engine has a fixed nozzle. The atmo-
spheric pressure p (Pa) changes the thrust force to TRE (N) in the
air:
TRE = K Tinf (2)
K = 1 − Ae ( p/Tinf ) (3)
Simultaneously, a specific impulse ISP (s) in the atmosphere is pro-
vided by the specific impulse ISPinf (s) in vacuum (fixed to be 445 s
in this paper) and the preceding parameter K :
ISP = K ISPinf (4)
Weight Analysis
The weight analysis computes the component weights of the
booster and orbiter and their combined gross weight from the geo-
metric and flight performance parameters in the design variables,
the component sizes as given by the vehicle definition, and the
amount of the propellant as provided by the trajectory analysis. This
study employs the Hypersonic Aerospace Sizing Analysis (HASA)
program,18 a statistical weight estimation method. The HASA pro-
gram is improved in parts, as follows:
1) The vertical launch boosters and the orbiters use their respective
landing gear only for landing, not launching. The landing weight of
a space transportation vehicle is generally much lighter than the
takeoff weight because the propellant weight is a high proportion
of the takeoff weight. Thus, the weight of gear that is used only for
landing is very different from that used for both takeoff and landing.
We estimate the landing gear weight of the vertical launch booster
and that of the orbiter with the maximum landing weight, that is,
Wgear = 0.0101W01.124 (5)
where Wgear (kg) is the landing gear weight. W0 (kg) is the total gross
weight to compute the gear weight of the horizontal takeoff booster
and, in the case of the vertical launch booster and the orbiter, it is
the maximum landing weight.
2) The orbiter has a reaction control system and orbital maneu-
vering engines (RCS/OME) and their propellants. The system has
thrusters with a specific impulse of 310 s and a velocity increment
capability of 340 m/s in orbit. The propellant is supposed to weigh
70% of the total RCS/OME weight.
3) This study estimates the weight of the thermal protection sys-
tem (TPS) more precisely than the HASA method. We presume that
the nose edge and wing leading edges of the orbiter are provided
with C/C materials (area density 40 kg/m2 ), and, on the other sur-
faces of the orbiter and the booster, thermal protection materials
equivalent to 30-mm-thick ceramic tiles are bonded.
4) The propellant tanks are made of aluminum alloy, and each is
composed of a cylinder whose ends are dome shaped. The working
pressure of the tank is given by the sum of the ullage pressure
(3 kgf/cm2 ) plus the head pressure. We compute the tank weight
from the tank wall thickness, which is obtained considering the
working pressure with the membrane theory. For manufacturability,
however, the thinnest wall is determined to be 3 mm thick in this
paper. In addition, the weight of the isogrid structure that is generally
patterned on the inner surface of the tank, plus the weight of spot
welds, sensor attachments, and so on, require the preceding tank
weight to be multiplied by a constant number 1.4 in order to avoid
underestimation.
5) An equation to obtain rocket engine weights is quoted from
Ref. 19. The following equation holds for the thrust force Tinf (N)
in vacuum and the engine weight Weng (kg):
Weng = 0.0119Tinf
0.856
(6)
A thrust-to-weight ratio of a rocket engine with a maximum thrust
force of 1.5 MN amounts to approximately 65 using the preceding
equation.
The estimation of the component weights needs the gross weight,
which is the sum total of the component weights. For example, the
landing gear weight, as part of the gross weight, is expressed as
an equation with a variable of the gross weight. Thus, the method
analyzes the weights using the gross weight in the design variables to
obtain the gross weight. We define an equality constraint condition
that both the weights correspond exactly.
Knowledge of the layout of the components in the vehicle makes
it possible to compute the center of gravity. The flight situations
define the constraint conditions by which the c.g. locations remain
within the limits that the aerodynamics analysis determined. There
is also an equality constraint condition that the c.g. location of the
booster does not move when the orbiter is released from the booster.
This implies that the only c.g. location determines the attachment
location of the orbiter in this paper.
 TSUCHIYA AND MORI
Trajectory Analysis
This study implements a three-degree-of-freedom (3DOF) tra-
jectory analysis.20 State variables are altitude, longitude, latitude,
velocity, flight-path angle, heading angle, and mass. Control vari-
ables are angle of attack, bank angle, and thrust throttle. Generally,
the trajectory analysis computes state variable profiles by integrating
equations of motion with given control variable profiles and exam-
ines satisfaction ratings of constraint conditions during the flight.
One of the characteristics in this study is to optimize the flight tra-
jectory with the other design variables, as already described. The
trajectory analysis, however, must deal with dynamic variables de-
pending on time, while the other design variables are static ones
independent of time. Therefore, we discretize the state and control
variables to transform them into static variables like the other de-
sign variables.21 In the same manner we also discretize constraint
conditions and the motion equations expressed as differential equa-
tions, which are functions of the state and control variables. The
number of discrete elements is fixed at 200 in total. Nevertheless,
if we were to discretize all 10 state and control variables with the
200 elements, the more than 2000 resultant design variables would
make for a very heavy computational burden in the optimization.
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
Therefore, we classify the state variables into those of position and
lateral motion (longitude, latitude, and heading angle) and others
(altitude, velocity, flight-path angle, and mass). The structures of
the motion equations exhibit strong interaction among the latter and
a weak influence of variation of the former on the latter. It follows
that we discretize only the latter four of the seven state variables and
the three control variables. When the values of the former three state
variables are required, they are computed by numerical integration
of their motion equations.
The flight styles of the vehicles change the equations of motion.
This divides the flight trajectory into four phases, as described next.
In addition, if each vehicle flies with multiple rocket engines the
engines are cut off one after another because the body axial ac-
celeration increases as the propellants are consumed. Because the
equations of motion change discontinuously at the shutdown points,
the phases must be subdivided into intervals, the number of which
corresponds to the number of engines. Initial and terminal times
in the intervals are contained in the optimized variables. We de-
fine equality constraint conditions to make the time and variables
equal between a series of intervals. The phases are explained as
follows.
Booster Ascent Phase
This phase indicates the flight from liftoff until the orbiter sep-
arates from the booster. We suppose that the launch site is Aeon
airfield (longitude, 157.36◦ west and latitude, 1.78◦ north) on Christ-
mas Island of the Republic of Kiribati (Fig. 3). On the island,
National Space Development Agency of Japan has a downrange
Fig. 3 Launch site.
773
station to monitor rockets launched from Japan. We also have a plan
to develop infrastructures for a future spaceport.
This study considers two takeoff styles: the horizontal takeoff and
the vertical launch. In the case of vertical launch, an initial condition
is that the flight-path angle is 90 deg. After the takeoff, having no
bank angle, the coupled vehicle rises and accelerates east by the
power of the booster’s rocket engines; this paper does not employ
parallel burn by the orbiter or cross-feeding of the propellants.
The horizontal takeoff vehicle has constraint conditions involving
the angle of attack, throttle, dynamic pressure, thrust, body normal
acceleration, and body axial acceleration. The values for these are
limited to the maximum values in the design variables, except for the
angle of attack and the throttle, which are below 20 deg and above
60%, respectively. The vertical launch vehicle has the same set of
constraint conditions, plus the constraint condition that the flight-
path angle must decrease steadily from the initial 90 deg. This is
because a free flight-path angle results in the optimal solution, in
which the vehicle descends with the flight-path angle negative im-
mediately after liftoff to enhance acceleration just above the ground
and then gains altitude by the lift force from its wings. This is an
unrealistic flight path with respect to safety, though it has the advan-
tage that the vehicle can accelerate even if powered by small rocket
engines. From this we constrain the flight-path angle of the vertical
launch vehicle to decrease monotonously.
Orbiter Ascent Phase
In this phase the released orbiter accelerates by its rocket engines
and climbs to an altitude of 120 km. At that altitude the orbiter
cuts off the rocket engines temporarily and zooms up with no thrust
in an elliptical orbit whose apogee altitude is 200 km. Finally, an
apogee kick puts it into a 200-km circular low Earth orbit (LEO).
To estimate propellant consumption, we actually compute the flight
trajectory until the temporary engine cutoff and approximate the
apogee kick by an impulse thrust.
At the beginning of this phase, the angle of attack is allowed to
have values that are discontinuous with the terminal angle of attack
in the preceding phase. The bank angle remains 0 deg during the
flight for the orbiter to fly east. The constraint conditions in this
phase are the angle of attack, throttle, dynamic pressure, thrust,
normal acceleration, and body axial acceleration. Their values are
limited to the orbiter’s flight performance parameters in the design
variables, except that the angle of attack is kept below 20 deg and
the throttle is kept in the 60–100% range.
Booster Fly-Back Phase
After releasing the orbiter, the booster turns to fly back to the
launch site, Aeon airfield. As the booster in this paper has no separate
airbreathing engines for the return flight, the only rocket engines can
propel the booster in this phase. In this paper they are not compared
with the vehicles with the airbreathing engines on the boosters. The
bank angle, which until now has been fixed at 0 deg, is allowed to be
free. The initial angle of attack must be equal to the terminal angle
in the booster ascent phase. As in the ascent phase, the angle of
attack, throttle, dynamic pressure, thrust, normal acceleration, and
body axial acceleration are constrained during the return flight. The
terminal constraint conditions are that the latitude and longitude of
the booster are identical with those of the launch site and the altitude
is zero.
Orbiter Reentry and Return Phase
In this phase the orbiter has completed its missions in orbit, which
in this case includes a payload pulled out of orbit and into the or-
biter’s payload bay. The payload-carrying orbiter reenters the atmo-
sphere and lands at the launch site. This study does not compute
the return trajectory of the orbiter by integrating the equations of
motion actually. Rather, we approximate the reentry guidance into
the atmosphere by using the analytic drag control guidance law22
employed for the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The constraint conditions
we use allow the orbiter to fly within the limits of the equilibrium
glide, heat rate, normal acceleration and dynamic pressure. The heat
rate is limited to 400 kW/m2 on the nose tip and the leading edge
 774 TSUCHIYA AND MORI

of the wing, whereas the normal acceleration and dynamic pressure
limits are given by the design variables. In addition, the following
constraint conditions are prepared: the lift-to-drag ratio of the orbiter
at subsonic speed must be greater than five, which is equivalent to
that of HOPE-X,23 and the orbiter can pull itself up at the maximum
angle of attack during landing without violating the body normal
acceleration limit.
Optimization Problem
In addition to the design variables and constraint conditions just
described, the total gross weight of the booster and orbiter with a
payload weight is defined as a minimized parameter. We originally
minimized a dry weight of the vehicles, and the vehicles obtained
were very large. To restrict the vehicle size, we redefined the mini-
mized parameter to be the total gross weight including the propellant
weight related to a vehicle volume. As a result, however, the sizes
and weights of the optimal vehicles in both the case of the min-
imized parameters differed by not more than 10%. Furthermore,
qualitative trends of the solutions were same. For rocket vehicles
with hydrogen–oxygen propellants, the dry weight and the gross
weight are closely linked. This study obtains the optimal solutions
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
the vertical launch booster uses the gear for landing and not for both
takeoff and landing. For either booster the takeoff weight is about
five times the landing weight. This makes the landing gear of the
horizontal takeoff booster six times heavier than that of the vertical
because of Eq. (5). The difference affects the total gross weight and
the dry weight. This result shows the necessity of more accurate
estimation of the landing gear weight. The difference in total gross
weight and dry weight between the vertical and horizontal takeoff
vehicles demonstrates that the former seems more feasible than the
latter, as the definition of the minimized parameter of this study
makes it clear that smaller vehicles are more likely to be realized.
In the future, however, when the field of candidate space transporta-
tion systems is narrowed down, weight will not be the only criterion.
Other criteria include cost, operability, reliability, and so on.
Figure 4 and Tables 2 and 3 show that, even if the orbiter has no
payload capability, the total gross weights of the orbiters and boost-
ers taking off vertically and horizontally are 126 and 146 Mg, re-
spectively. An increase in the payload weight by 1 Mg increases the
total gross weight by 40–50 Mg. If fully reusable rocket TSTO sys-
tems are made to replace Japan’s expendable H-IIA rocket, which
has a payload capability of more than 10 Mg to LEO, the total

for both the vertical and horizontal takeoff vehicles, in which three gross weights of the vertical launch vehicles and the horizontal
sets of payload weights and volumes are delivered to/from orbit: takeoff vehicles will probably reach 550 and 600 Mg, respectively,
0 Mg and 0 m3 , 4 Mg and 40 m3 , and 8 Mg and 80 m3 . whereas the H-IIA rocket weighs about 290 Mg. Compared with
A sequential-quadratic-programming method is employed as an
optimization method. There are approximately 1450 optimized de-
sign variables. The reason for the large number is that we have not
only the geometric and flight performance parameters, but also the
seven state and control variables discretized to the 200 elements, as
explained in the preceding subsections.

Optimal Solutions
Optimal Configurations
Figure 4 shows the variation in weight configurations of the hor-
izontal and vertical takeoff vehicles with the payload weights and
volumes. Tables 2 and 3 detail the component weights as well as
the size and performance data for the vehicles. The results demon-
strate that the vertical launch vehicles are 10–15% lighter than the
horizontal takeoff vehicles in total gross weight. The vertical launch
vehicles are about 20% lighter in the total dry weight as well. The
difference is attributed to the landing gear weights of the respec-
tive boosters. As described in the weight analysis, the landing gear
weight of the vertical launch booster is estimated on the basis of the
maximum landing weight, rather than the takeoff weight, because Fig. 4 Component weight comparison for the two takeoff styles.

Table 2 Performance and weight data of optimal horizontal takeoff vehicles

Payload weight and volume

Characteristic 0 Mg and 0 m3 4 Mg and 40 m3 8 Mg and 80 m3
Vehicle type Booster Orbiter Booster Orbiter Booster Orbiter
Body length, m 47.57 17.61 63.49 25.95 70.78 29.91
Body diameter, m 3.56 2.16 4.40 4.47 4.94 5.59
Wing area, m2 185.1 31.8 326.9 157.0 444.0 247.7
Max. normal acceleration, g 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5
Max. axial acceleration, g 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3
Max. dynamic pressure, kPa 50.0 15.0 50.0 15.0 50.0 15.0
Total thrust (vacuum), MN 2.56 0.18 6.77 0.92 10.01 1.58
Total engines 2 1 5 1 7 2
Fuselage weight, Mg 7.60 1.28 13.39 3.97 17.24 5.78
Wing weight, Mg 2.98 0.25 6.46 1.36 9.63 2.33
Stabilizer weight, Mg 0.64 0.09 1.07 0.86 1.60 1.60
TPS weight, Mg 3.10 0.88 5.21 3.21 6.80 4.85
Landing gear weight, Mg 6.46 0.18 17.91 0.80 27.96 1.35
Tank weight, Mg 4.35 0.87 8.92 2.26 13.09 3.18
Rocket engine weight, Mg 4.02 0.38 10.55 1.52 15.48 2.67
Misc. weight, Mg 5.07 2.19 8.14 4.80 10.18 6.48
Dry weight, Mg 34.22 6.12 71.65 18.78 101.98 28.24
LH2 weight, Mg 13.33 1.72 29.26 8.66 41.71 14.92
LOX weight, Mg 79.98 10.30 175.56 51.94 250.24 89.53
RCS/OME propellant weight, Mg —— 0.73 —— 2.69 —— 4.29
Gross weight, Mg 127.53 18.87 276.47 86.07 393.93 144.98
Total gross weight, Mg 146.40 362.54 538.91
 TSUCHIYA AND MORI 775

Table 3 Performance and weight data of optimal vertical launch vehicles

Payload weight and volume

Characteristic 0 Mg and 0 m3 4 Mg and 40 m3 8 Mg and 80 m3
Vehicle type Booster Orbiter Booster Orbiter Booster Orbiter
Body length, m 47.47 16.40 61.74 24.25 66.74 29.90
Body diameter, m 3.32 2.00 4.32 4.47 4.83 5.59
Wing area, m2 154.5 28.1 343.5 137.2 438.3 246.8
Max. normal acceleration, g 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5
Max. axial acceleration, g 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.6
Max. dynamic pressure, kPa 50.0 15.0 50.0 15.0 50.0 15.0
Total thrust (vacuum), MN 2.65 0.14 7.66 0.75 11.25 1.48
Total engines 2 1 6 1 8 2
Fuselage weight, Mg 7.16 1.10 12.98 3.65 16.20 5.76
Wing weight, Mg 2.19 0.21 5.90 1.24 8.12 2.31
Stabilizer weight, Mg 0.48 0.07 0.97 0.96 1.25 1.58
TPS weight, Mg 2.77 0.77 5.09 2.97 6.26 4.83
Landing gear weight, Mg 0.95 0.16 2.18 0.74 2.98 1.33
Tank weight, Mg 4.14 0.74 8.47 1.98 11.41 3.19
Rocket engine weight, Mg 4.14 0.30 12.04 1.27 17.43 2.52
Misc. weight, Mg 4.80 1.99 7.93 4.53 9.82 6.45
Dry weight, Mg 26.63 5.34 55.56 17.34 73.47 27.97
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082

LH2 weight, Mg 11.97 1.34 27.28 7.46 36.88 14.92

LOX weight, Mg 71.84 8.03 163.67 44.76 221.27 89.53
RCS/OME propellant weight, Mg —— 0.63 —— 2.52 —— 4.26
Gross weight, Mg 110.44 15.34 246.51 76.08 331.62 144.68
Total gross weight, Mg 125.78 322.59 476.30

Fig. 6 Optimized vertical launch vehicles.

Fig. 5 Optimized horizontal takeoff vehicles.
existent airplanes, the horizontal takeoff vehicles are considerably
heavy.
Figures 5 and 6, which illustrate the horizontal and vertical take-
off vehicles, show little difference between them. An increase in
required payload capacity by 1 Mg and 10 m3 lengthens the boost-
ers by about 4 m. Boosters that can carry the orbiters with a payload
capability of more than 8 Mg and 80 m3 would be more than 70 m
long, which would pose operational problems insofar as the boost-
ers would be bigger than existing airplanes and rockets. Thus, to
increase the feasibility of these vehicles, they must be reduced in
both size and weight.
Because the booster (whether vertical or horizontal takeoff type)
must fly back, it has a fine fuselage and large wings, as these charac-
teristics extend the reachable range by reducing drag and increasing
the lift-to-drag ratio. The wing area of the horizontal takeoff booster
coincides with the smallest wing area that allows the booster cou-
pled with the orbiter to take off at the maximum angle of attack. On
the other hand, the wing area of the vertical launch booster is not
so constrained and is designed solely to optimize fly-back perfor-
mance. Likewise, for either type of orbiter the wing area depends on
the flight conditions from reentry to landing, as the orbiter is subject
to little aerodynamic force in its ascent flight after being released
from the booster.
 776 TSUCHIYA AND MORI
Fig. 7 Trajectory plots of horizontal takeoff vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3
payload).
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
Fig. 8 Altitude and velocity history of horizontal takeoff vehicle
(4 Mg and 40 m3 payload).
Fig. 9 Control history of horizontal takeoff vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3
payload).
Optimal Trajectories
Figures 7–14 show optimal ascent and return trajectories of the
vehicles with the 4 Mg and 40 m3 payload. Vehicles with differ-
ent payload capabilities exhibit about the same optimal trajectories.
The horizontal takeoff booster coupled with the orbiter takes off at
the maximum angle of attack of 20 deg as it leaves the runway at
123 m/s. When taking off, the vehicle has a thrust-to-weight ratio
of 1.4, which is considerably larger than that of existing aircraft,
Fig. 10 Acceleration and dynamic pressure history of horizontal take-
off vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3 payload).
Fig. 11 Trajectory plots of vertical launch vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3
payload).
Fig. 12 Altitude and velocity history of vertical launch vehicle (4 Mg
and 40 m3 payload).
and that of the vertical launch vehicle is 1.7. Once the horizontal
takeoff vehicle is airborne, the flight-path angle increases to 54 deg
and then gradually decreases. As the dynamic pressure increases, it
controls the throttle to prevent the dynamic pressure from exceeding
the optimal limit. Additionally, with the increase in the body axial
acceleration the horizontal takeoff booster controls the throttle in
order to stay at the maximum acceleration limit; the vertical launch
vehicle stops one of its six rocket engines during the ascent. Mono-
tone acceleration and climb are common to both the vertical and
horizontal takeoff vehicles. In both cases altitude and velocity reach
approximately 50 km and 2.5 km/s, respectively, in about 130 s, at
 TSUCHIYA AND MORI
Fig. 13 Control history of vertical launch vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3
payload).
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
Fig. 14 Acceleration and dynamic pressure history of vertical launch
vehicle (4 Mg and 40 m3 payload).
which time the orbiters are released. The dynamic pressure ranges
from 3 to 4 kPa at that moment. We should examine the possibility of
separation in such an environment in the future. The engine thrusts
of both types of orbiters right after the release are almost equal to
their respective vehicle weights. The orbiters rise and accelerate by
bang-bang control of the throttles. As we suppose that the thrust
direction coincides with the body axis, the control of the angle of
attack is equivalent to the thrust direction control in a low-dynamic
pressure environment.
For both vertical and horizontal takeoff vehicles, the booster’s op-
timal return flight does not involve any use of rocket engines even
though the engine throttle is not constrained to be zero. That means
no propellants are consumed in the return. Downrange distances
from the launch site are about 100 km at the moment of separation.
However, the low dynamic pressure means that the no-thrust boost-
ers cannot yet change their flight path. Instead the boosters continue
to climb by their own inertia; the horizontal takeoff booster and the
vertical launch booster reach altitudes of 68 and 78 km, respectively.
Once the boosters begin their descent and the aerodynamic forces
work again, the downrange distances reach 400–500 km. The boost-
ers start a turn with the bank angle that exceeds 70 deg. At a high
bank angle the boosters gain a short turning radius but lose altitude
and velocity. The optimization provides the best bank angle and
angle of attack between the losses and gains. The boosters subtly
adjust the two angles in order to prevent the dynamic pressure and
body normal acceleration from exceeding the optimized limits. As
the ground projection of the flight path points to the launch site,
the boosters gradually lessen the bank angle to 0 deg, and the angle
777
of attack is set to that which maximizes the lift-to-drag ratio. This
extends the flight range and enables the boosters to glide back to the
launch site. The characteristics of the optimal return trajectories are
the nonlevel turn and the glide flight. Even though the boosters do
not use rocket engines for the return flight, they are able to return all
of the way back to the launch site by nonlevel turning and gliding.
Conclusions
In this paper the optimization method was applied to conceptual
studies of fully reusable rocket two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) vehicles
in order to find the smallest vehicles that can fulfill the mission
requirements. The booster and orbiter vehicles were classified by
their manner of ascent: horizontal takeoff and vertical launch. Con-
ceptual studies of space transportation systems proceed by the col-
laboration of several different disciplines. First, we explained the
analysis methods in each discipline, that is, the vehicle definition,
the surface mesh generator, the low-fidelity aerodynamics analy-
sis, the propulsion analysis, the statistical weight estimation, and
the three-degree-of-freedom trajectory analysis, all of which were
integrated into a conceptual analysis tool. On that basis, we spec-
ified the optimization problem in which the minimized parameter
was defined as the total (combined) gross weight of the first-stage
booster and second-stage orbiter.
The results showed that TSTO vehicles with a practical payload
capability are larger and heavier than both existing airplanes and
comparable expendable rockets. Weight reduction and miniaturiza-
tion of components are necessary to increase the feasibility of the
vehicles. In addition, the vertical launch vehicles are lighter in total
gross weight than the horizontal takeoff vehicles because the land-
ing gears of the vertical launch vehicles are used only during landing
and therefore can be made far lighter than the gears of the horizon-
tal takeoff vehicles, which are used for takeoff as well as landing.
However, as we must evaluate cost, operability, reliability, and other
factors besides weight, it is not necessarily appropriate to suggest
that vertical rather than horizontal launch systems should be selected
for future development. Weight estimation must be made more ac-
curate in the future. This study is characterized by its simultaneous
optimization of the flight trajectories and the vehicle configurations.
The optimization demonstrated that the boosters could return to the
launch site in the down-ranges provided by the ascent trajectories,
using only nonlevel turning and gliding without the use of the rocket
engines, that is, the boosters consume no fuel in their return flight.
Japan has recently developed airbreathing engines that can work
at hypersonic speed in future space transportation systems. In future
studies we will apply the present method to conceptual designs
of vehicles equipped with these new engines and compare their
performance with that of the all-rocket-propulsion TSTO vehicle as
described in this paper.
References
1 Maita, M., and Shirouzu, M., “Japan’s Perspective for Future Space
Transportation System,” AIAA Paper 2001-4543, Aug. 2001.
2 Sato, T., Tanatsugu, N., and Naruo, Y., “Development Study on ATREX
Engine,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 47, No. 11, 2000, pp. 799–808.
3 Inatani, Y., Naruo, Y., and Yonemoto, K., “Concept and Preliminary
Flight Testing of a Fully Reusable Rocket Vehicle,” Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2001, pp. 36–42.
4 Dujarric, C., Caporicci, M., Kuczera, H., and Sacher P., “Conceptual
Studies and Technology Requirements for a New Generation of European
Launchers,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 41, No. 4–10, 1997, pp. 219–228.
5 Bonnal, C., and Caporicci, M., “Future Reusable Launch Vehicles in
Europe: the FLTP (Future Launchers Technologies Programme),” Acta As-
tronautica, Vol. 47, No. 2–9, 2000, pp. 113–118.
6 Hammond, W. E., Design Methodologies for Space Transportation
Systems, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001.
7 Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., and Haftka, R. T., “Multidisciplinary
Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments,” AIAA
Paper 96-0711, Jan. 1996.
8 Wolf, D. M., “TRANSYS-Space Transportation System Preliminary De-
sign Software,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 31, No. 6, 1994,
pp. 1067–1071.
9 Rahn, M., Schottle, U. M., and Messerschmid, E., “Multidisciplinary
Design Tool for System and Mission Optimization of Launch Vehicles,”
AIAA 96-4130, Sept. 1996.
 778 TSUCHIYA AND MORI
10 Koelle, D. E., “Economics of Small Fully Reusable Launch Systems
(SSTO vs. TSTO),” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 40, No. 2–8, 1997, pp. 535–544.
11 Miele, A., and Mancuso, S., “Design Feasibility via Ascent Optimality
for Next-Generation Spacecraft,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 45, No. 12, 1999,
pp. 705–715.
12 Mehta, U. B., and Bowles, J. V., “Two-Stage-to-Orbit Spaceplane Con-
cept with Growth Potential,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17,
No. 6, 2001, pp. 1149–1161.
13 Tsuchiya, T., and Suzuki, S., “A Simultaneous Optimization Technique
for Spaceplane Shape and Trajectory,” AIAA Paper 2001-1847, April 2001.
14 Tsujimoto, T., Kouchiyama, J., and Shirouzu, M., “Current Status of the
H-II Orbiting Plane Experimental (HOPE-X) Development,” Proceedings
of 22nd International Symposium on Space Technology and Science, Japan
Society for Aeronautical and Space Science, Motioka, Japan, 2000, Paper
00-g-06.
15 Morino, L., Chen, L., and Suciu, E., “Steady and Oscillatory Subsonic
and Supersonic Aerodynamics around Complex Configurations,” AIAA Jour-
nal, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1975, pp. 368–374.
16 Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA, Reston,
VA, 1999.
17 Sova, G., and Divan, P., “Aerodynamic Preliminary Analysis System II.
Part II: User’s Manual,” NASA CR-182077, April 1991.
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082
18 Harloff, G. J., and Berkowitz, B. M., “HASA—Hypersonic Aerospace
Sizing Analysis for Preliminary Design of Aerospace Vehicles,” NASA CR-
182226, Nov. 1988.
19 Koelle, D. E., TRANSCOST Statistical-Analytical Model for Cost Esti-
mation and Economic Optimization of Space Transportation Systems, TCS-
Trans Cost Systems, Ottobrunn, Germany, 1991.
20 Zipfel, P. H., Modeling and Simulation of Aerospace Vehicle Dynamics,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2000.
21 Tsuchiya, T., and Suzuki, S., “Spaceplane Trajectory Optimization with
Vehicle Size Analysis,” 14th IFAC Symposium on Automatic Control in
Aerospace, International Federation of Automatic Control, Seoul, Repub-
lic of Korea, 1998, pp. 444–449.
22 Harpold, J. C., and Graves, C. A., Jr., “Shuttle Entry Guidance,” Journal
of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1979, pp. 239–268.
23 NAL/NASDA HOPE Joint Research Team, “Aerodynamic Data
Book—HOPE-X FY09,” National Space Development Agency, NASDA
TMR-000001, Tokyo, March 2000 (in Japanese).
J. Martin
Associate Editor
 This article has been cited by:

1. Mathieu BalesdentNicolas BérendPhilippe Dépincé. 2012. Stagewise Multidisciplinary Design Optimization

Formulation for Optimal Design of Expendable Launch Vehicles. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 49:4, 720-730.
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
2. Mathieu Balesdent, Nicolas Bérend, Philippe Dépincé, Abdelhamid Chriette. 2012. A survey of multidisciplinary
design optimization methods in launch vehicle design. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 45:5, 619-642.
[CrossRef]
3. Jonathan Black, ; J. Simmons, Verifying Launch Vehicle Conceptual Designs Using First Principles and Historical
Trends . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
4. Amer Farhan RAFIQUE, Linshu HE, Ali KAMRAN, Qasim ZEESHAN. 2011. Hyper Heuristic Approach for Design
and Optimization of Satellite Launch Vehicle. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 24:2, 150-163. [CrossRef]
5. A. F. Rafique, L. S. He, Q. Zeeshan, A. Kamran, K. Nisar. 2011. Multidisciplinary design and optimization of an air
launched satellite launch vehicle using a hybrid heuristic search algorithm. Engineering Optimization 43:3, 305-328.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by Stanford University on October 7, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.1082

6. Mathieu Balesdent, Nicolas Bérend, Philippe Dépincé, Abdelhamid Chriette. 2010. Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization of Multi-Stage Launch Vehicle using Flight Phases Decomposition. International Journal for Simulation
and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization 4:3-4, 117-125. [CrossRef]
7. Yunjun Xu. 2009. Trajectory Analysis for Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing Reusable Launch Vehicle’s Upper
Stage. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 22:1, 58-66. [CrossRef]
8. Mateen-Ud-Din QaziLinshu HePermoon Mateen. 2007. Hammersley Sampling and Support-Vector-Regression-
Driven Launch Vehicle Design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 44:5, 1094-1106. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
9. Xiao Huang, ; Bernd Chudoba, Overview of a HTHL Hands-On SAV Design Synthesis Methodology . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
10. Vernon T. Bechel, Mathew Negilski, Joshua James. 2006. Limiting the permeability of composites for cryogenic
applications. Composites Science and Technology 66:13, 2284-2295. [CrossRef]
11. Mateen-ud-Din Qazi, He Linshu. 2006. Nearly-orthogonal sampling and neural network metamodel driven conceptual
design of multistage space launch vehicle. Computer-Aided Design 38:6, 595-607. [CrossRef]
12. Takeshi TSUCHIYA. 2006. Near-Optimal Guidance Method for Maximizing the Reachable Domain of Gliding
Aircraft. TRANSACTIONS OF THE JAPAN SOCIETY FOR AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES 49:165,
137-145. [CrossRef]
13. Takeshi TsuchiyaTakashige Mori. 2005. Optimal Design of Two-Stage-To-Orbit Space Planes with Airbreathing
Engines. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 42:1, 90-97. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]