Trans. JSASS Aerospace Tech.

Japan
Vol. 10, No. ists28, pp. Te_5-Te_10, 2012

Topics

Conceptual Design of Mars Airplane

By Koji FUJITA1), Remi LUONG2), Hiroki NAGAI1) and Keisuke ASAI1)

1)
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
2)
Masters of Science in Space Studies, International Space University, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France

(Received June 27th, 2011)

The presence of an atmosphere on Mars signifies that an aircraft could travel in its atmosphere using the aerodynamic
forces of flight. A reconnaissance aircraft offers the possibility to obtain high resolution data on a regional scale of several
hundreds to thousands of kilometers, which cannot be achieved with rovers or satellites. However, conventional aircraft
design cannot be applied for a Mars Airplane because of the nature of the Martian atmosphere and the constraints from
transportation from Earth to Mars. This paper presents the conceptual design of a fixed-wing airplane for Mars, and the
design rationale undertaken following the constraints set by the Martian environment. As a result, the main wing area was
calculated to be 1.2 m2. It was folded using two hinges to be packed into an aeroshell. The proposed Mars Airplane has four
notches on its main wing. They make packing easier to keep the wing area maximized, making the Mars Airplane more
compact.

Key Words: Exploration, Mars, Airplane, Design, Low Reynolds Number

Nomenclature Subscripts
c : each component for drag estimation
AR : aspect ratio
CD : drag coefficient 1. Introduction
CD0 : parasite drag coefficient
Cf : friction drag coefficient Recently, attention towards Mars exploration has refocused
CL : lift coefficient to do research on the physical and biological origins of the
CL max : maximum lift coefficient Solar system. JAXA has proposed the Mars exploration
D : cruise drag mission plan called “MELOS”1). It includes multiple
e : span efficiency exploration missions done by several probes. A Mars
E : endurance exploration airplane is one of those options.
f : fuselage taper ratio (length / diameter) Up until now, Mars was always explored by rovers and
FF : form factor satellites. Rovers can acquire high resolution data, but was
M : Mach number limited to a small area, up to several kilometers. On the other
Mbat req : required mass of battery hand, satellites can survey vast areas, but the obtainable data
Mtotal : total mass of the Mars Airplane is of relatively low resolution. Because of this, Mars
Pav. : available power exploration aircrafts have been seriously considered by
Pmotor : motor output power NASA2,3) in the past. Aircrafts offer the possibility to obtain
Ptotal : total input power high resolution data on a regional scale of several hundreds to
Q : aerodynamic interference factor thousands of kilometers, which cannot be achieved with
Rel : characteristic length Reynolds number rovers or satellites.
RoC : rate of climb One of the biggest challenges of a Mars Airplane is the low
Sref : wing area atmospheric density of Mars. Aerodynamic characteristics are
Swet : wetted area quite different due to low Reynolds number flow, and larger
t/c : wing thickness / chord wing area is required to obtain the required lift.
Tav. : available thrust The purpose of the work done is to perform a feasibility
Treq : required thrust study of a Mars Airplane. This paper presents the conceptual
V∞ : cruise velocity design of a fixed-wing airplane for Mars, and the design
W : total weight rationale undertaken following the constraints set by the
(x/c)m : position of maximum thickness Martian environment. Flight tests at high altitude atmosphere
ηmotor : motor efficiency are planned to be conducted in 2012. The atmospheric density
ηprop : propeller efficiency at about 30 kilometers altitude is similar to the Martian
Λm : sweep angle atmosphere.
ρ : atmospheric density on the Mars
ρenergy : energy density

1
Copyright© 2012 by the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences and ISTS. All rights reserved.

Te_5
 Trans. JSASS Aerospace Tech. Japan Vol. 10, No. ists28 (2012)

2. Conceptual design process
The conceptual design process followed by this study is
shown in Figure 1. It is based on “Aircraft Design: A
Conceptual Approach” by Raymer4), and added a
consideration of deployment. The first step of the design
process is to establish the design requirements of the aircraft.
Following those requirements, concept sketches are produced,
and an initial sizing is generated. The sizing values are then
analyzed for performance and the whole process is repeated in
an iterative fashion to obtain an optimized solution.
In an ordinary design process, statistically-based estimation
methods and empirical rules are used for indeterminate values
at the conceptual design phase4). However, due to the low
Reynolds number involved in the Martian atmosphere, these
empirical rules are not applicable for a Mars airplane. It is
therefore recommended to use statistical data of small UAV
and MAV and the theory that is suitable to low Reynolds
number flow especially for the estimation involving
aerodynamics. Aerodynamic characteristic experiments at low
Reynolds number are undertaken by the working group
centered at JAXA and Tohoku University and results from
these experiments will be incorporated in future studies.
The Mars Airplane will be launched to Mars packed within an
aeroshell. On Mars, the aeroshell will enter and descend the
atmosphere. The Mars airplane will be released from the
aeroshell at the desired altitude, deploy in midair while
controlling its attitude, and then pull out into horizontal flight
and start cruising. Its mission will include taking high
resolution pictures of the surface as well as collect data on the
Martian magnetic field over a large area.
4. Requirements and constraints
A list of the requirements and constraints of the Mars
airplane, which were defined from the mission scenario, is
shown in Table 1. The maximum total mass of the Mars
Airplane was defined as 3.5 kg from the standpoint of balance
for the MELOS mission. The aircraft configuration was set as
fixed wing and propeller propulsion powered by a DC motor.
The payloads include a magnetometer and a high resolution
camera. From the viewpoint of observation and aerodynamics,
a cruise velocity and a range were set to 50 m/s and 300 km,
respectively. The endurance is therefore of 100min. The
cruising altitude was set to 1.5 km and density at that altitude
is assumed to be 0.013 kg/m3. Internal shape of an aeroshell
was assumed as a circular cylinder of 0.60 m in height and 1.0
m in diameter for simplicity. The Mars Airplane must
therefore include a folding mechanism to be packed inside that
volume.

Table 1. Requirements and constraints.

Item Value Unit
Maximum Total Mass 3.5 kg
Cruise Velocity 50 m/s
Range 300 km
Altitude 1.5 km
Density 0.013 kg/m3
Length of the Aeroshell 0.60 m
Diameter of the Aeroshell 1.0 m
Fig. 1. The conceptual design process. Item Comment
Configuration fixed wing
Propulsion Propeller / DC Motor
3. Current mission scenario
Magnetometer
Payloads High Resolution Camera
A conceptual diagram of the current mission scenario is
shown in Figure 2. 5. Design rationale

5.1. Aerodynamic performance

The lift-drag ratio was maximized while satisfying the
cruise velocity of 50 m/s and a total mass of 3.5 kg.
Since the density, the cruise velocity, and the total weight
are given from requirements and constraints, a required lift
coefficient was given by the following equation,
2W 1
CL  (1)
V2 S ref
As shown, it was determined only by the wing area.
Drag coefficient was separated into parasite drag coefficient
and induced drag coefficient. The parasite drag coefficient
was estimated using the Component Buildup Method4) which
is shown in Eq. (2).
∑(C )
Fig. 2. The conceptual diagram of the current mission scenario. (Images:
Courtesy of JAXA and NASA) FFc Qc S wetc
CD0 =
fc
(2)
S ref

Te_6
 K. FUJITA et al.: Conceptual Design of Mars Airplane

First of all, the friction coefficients, form factors, aerodynamic
interference factors, and wetted areas were evaluated for each
component such as the main wing, fuselage, and so on. From
these, parasite drag coefficients for each component were
evaluated. The total parasite drag was then obtained from the
sum of those. Friction coefficients were evaluated using Eq.
(3).
1.328
Cf 
Rel
In this study, the span efficiency was estimated using a
usual statistically-based estimation method as a reference. So
it may include some inaccuracy. Figure 5 shows the impact of
the span efficiency on the drag coefficient. With a low span
efficiency, the drag coefficient will increase, even double.
This will influence the allowable battery mass, and a more
reasonable estimation is therefore needed.
(3)
10.5 1.2

Form factors indicate the rate of pressure drag coefficient in 1

10
the parasite drag coefficient. Form factors of the main wing C
Lmax
and the tail wing were obtained using Eq. (4), 0.8

L/D
9.5

CL
 t 
4

FF  1 
0.6  t 
 0.18
   100   1.34M (cos  m )
0.28
 (4) 0.6

 x / c m  c   c   9
0.4
and that of the fuselage was obtained using Eq. (5).
60 f 8.5 0.2
FF = 1 + +
f 3 400
(5) 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Sref
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Sref
1.6 1.8 2 2.2

A wing taper ratio of 0.45 was set for high span efficiency. (a) Lift-drag ratio. (b) Required lift coefficient.
The fuselage was assumed as a circular cylinder of 800 mm in Fig. 3. The impact of the wing area.
length and 80 mm in diameter. All aerodynamic interference
factors were set to 1. The induced drag coefficient was Table 2 Aerodynamic performance.
obtained through Eq. (6). Total mass Mtotal [kg] 3.5
C2 Cruise velocity V∞ [m/s] 50
C Di = L (6)
Input

πeAR Wing Area Sref [m2] 1.2

The span efficiency was estimated using usual Span efficiency e 0.7
statistically-based estimation method4): Wing Reynolds Number Re 26 000
e  1.78(1  0.045 AR 0.68 )  0.64 (7) Mach Number M 0.21
The span efficiency was set to a lower value than usual one Weight(=Lift) W [N] 13
calculated by Eq. (7) due to the low wing Reynolds number. Lift Coefficient CL 0.64
Output

The drag coefficient was calculated and then the lift-drag ratio Parasite Drag Coefficient CD0 0.035
was calculated. Induced Drag Coefficient CDi 0.034
Parameters like the wing area, the aspect ratio, etc. were Drag Coefficient CD 0.069
determined to maximize the lift-drag ratio while satisfying the Cruise Drag D [N] 1.39
Lift-Drag Ratio L/D 9.4
required lift coefficient to be much lower than the maximum
lift coefficient. The impact of aspect ratio on the drag
coefficient was found to be lower than regular aircraft,
because the parasite drag coefficient is the dominant in the Parasite drag coefficient (main wing)
total drag coefficient due to the low Reynolds number. A low Parasite drag coefficient (tail wing)
Parasite drag coefficient (fuselage)
aspect ratio was preferred from the viewpoint of packing into Induced drag coefficient
the aeroshell, and therefore, the aspect ratio was set to 5.6.
Figures 3(a) and (b) show the impact of the wing area on
the lift-drag ratio and the required lift coefficient, respectively. 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
A decrease in wing area will increase the lift-drag ratio and Drag coefficient
make the Mars Airplane smaller and therefore lighter. Fig. 4. The breakdown of the drag coefficient.
However, if the required lift coefficient is too close to a
maximum lift coefficient, the Mars Airplane will stall with the 0.16
slightest change of angle of attack. For this iteration, it was 0.14
0.12
assumed that the angle of attack is 3 degree lower than the 0.1
stall angle. The main wing area and the required lift 0.08
D
C

0.06
coefficient were then set to 1.2 m2 and 0.64, respectively. 0.04
0.02
Table 2 shows these results. The drag and the lift-drag ratio 0
became 1.39 N and 9.4, respectively. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
e
Figure 4 shows a breakdown of the drag coefficient. The
parasite drag and the induced drag were similar in value, and Fig. 5. The impact of the span efficiency on the drag coefficient.
the flight condition is near the lift-drag ratio maximized
condition. Figure 4 also shows that the most part of parasite 5.2. Packing strategy
drag is generated by the main wing. Having set the desired wing area in the previous section, the

Te_7
 Trans. JSASS Aerospace Tech. Japan Vol. 10, No. ists28 (2012)

packing strategy inside the aeroshell is now discussed. As a
starting point, a rectangular wing was assumed for simplicity.
A folding method using hinges was adopted as the
deployment mechanism, since it was adopted in many other
previous studies2,3) and offers high reliability due to its simple
structure.
The position and number of hinges were then considered.
Figure 6 shows a sketch of the aeroshell and the main wing in
planform. A square can get the maximum area of 0.5 m2 inside
the circle of the aeroshell. With the area of the main wing set
power output as a margin for inaccuracy of this elementary
estimation. These results are shown in Table 3. A rate of climb
of 6.0 m/s was calculated. The rate of climb is reduced to 1.5
m/s at an altitude of 15 km, giving the Mars Airplane a high
ceiling altitude. These values require refinement using
experimental propeller performance data at the given
Reynolds number and Mach number.
14
prop=0.6

Rate of Climb [m/s]

12
prop=0.7
to 1.2 m2, it is sufficient to separate the main wing into three 10
prop=0.8
parts using two hinge lines. A conclusive planform with a 8
prop=0.9
tapered geometry was obtained to fit into the aeroshell. 6
4
2
0
100 150 200 250
P [W]
motor

Fig. 7. The impact of the motor power and the propeller efficiency on
the rate of climb.

Table 3 Propulsion performance.

Cruise Velocity V∞ [m/s] 50
Cruise Drag D [N] 1.39
Input

Propeller Efficiency ηprop 0.7

Fig. 6. Sketch of the aeroshell and of the main wing in planform. Motor Output Pmotor [W] 210
Cruise Thrust Treq [N] 1.39
5.3. Propulsion performance Required Axial Power Preq [W] 99
The flow around propeller is at low Reynolds number and Available Power Pav. [W] 147
Output

relatively high Mach number making the propulsion Available Thrust Tav. [N] 2.9
performance estimation quite difficult. In this study, the rate Rate of Climb RoC [m/s] 6.0
of climb capability was defined as a measure of the propulsion Altitude at RoC = 1.5m/s [km] 15
performance. The rate of climb of commercial single engine
propeller airplanes at sea-level is required to be at least 4 m/s5). 5.3. Mass estimation
The rate of climb of the Mars Airplane was designed to
The total mass was estimated as the sum of the mass of each
satisfying this requirement at an altitude of 1.5 km.
section. The result is shown in table 4.
The required axial power was evaluated using Eq. (8),
For the wing, a frame structure was adopted and its material
T V
Preq  req ∞ (8) was set to duralumin. The mass of the wing was obtained by
 prop assuming that the mass is proportional to the wing area with
where the propeller efficiency was set to 0.7. An off-the-shelf 348 g per 1 m2.
motor was selected and its available power was evaluated Material of fuselage was set to CFRP with a density of 1570
using Eq. (9). kg/m3. The mass of the fuselage was then calculated by
Pav.  Pmotor prop (9) assuming a skin thickness of 0.4 mm.
The available thrust was then evaluated as A two bladed single propeller configuration was assumed.
Pav. The mass of propeller blade was set to 65 g.
Tav. = (10)
V∞ The required mass of battery was estimated using Eq. (12).
With these values, the rate of climb was then obtained using Ptotal E
M bat.req  (12)
Eq. (11).  energy
Tav －D As for the battery, a laminated Li-ion battery was selected. Its
RoC = . V∞ (11)
W energy density was set to 107 Wh/kg. The total required
The impact of the motor power and the propeller efficiency on power was calculated as the sum of input power for the motor,
the rate of climb is shown in Figure 7. payloads, and electronic devices. The power required for the
The motor SII-2215-1127KV(V2) manufactured by motor was obtained from the propulsion performance
Scorpion Power System LTD was selected while considering calculations described above. From Eq. (12), a partial
a possibility of decreased propeller efficiency due to low derivative of the mass of the battery with respect to the drag
Reynolds number6). This motor could theoretically provide the coefficient was obtained as shown in Eq. (13).
required rate of climb with its power output of 210 W, while ∂M battery V∞3 S E
  3.0  10 4 g  (13)
being relatively light with a mass of 69 g. It has slightly higher ∂C D 2 motor prop  energy

Te_8
 K. FUJITA et al.: Conceptual Design of Mars Airplane

This shows that the mass of the battery will increase 30 g as a over the fuselage, whereas the left wing folds under the
0.001 increase of the drag coefficient. More accurate drag fuselage, to allow for efficient packing inside the aeroshell. A
estimation is therefore needed. potential issue associated to this deployment strategy is the
The masses of the magnetometer and the high resolution fact that the right wing, which is folded over the fuselage, will
camera were set to 100 g7), respectively. Including the have to go against the aerodynamic lift force it generates
accessories, the total mass of payloads was set to 550 g. during its deployment.
The masses of the receiver and the navigation system were The main wing includes notches which allows for packing
set to 10 g8) and 400 g, respectively. Four servos were used inside the aeroshell while maximizing the wing area.
and their total mass was set to 164 g9). The mass of the wiring A V-tail design was adopted to reduce the wetted surface
was estimated to 20 g. area of the tail. The V-tail also allows for empennage section
to avoid geometrical interference with the propeller and the
Table 4 Mass. fuselage in its packing state. The tail boom has a telescopic
Main Wing 418 g mechanism to increase a tail moment arm, and therefore
Fuselage 139 g reducing the required tail surface area.
Tail Wing 142 g
Propulsion 219 g 6.2. Pusher configuration Mars Airplane
Battery 1480 g The pusher configuration Mars Airplane is shown in Figure
Payload 550 g 9. The pusher configuration is gaining popularity in modern
Electronic Devices 594 g designs, especially with composite aircrafts and UAVs. This
Total 3.5 kg increasing popularity could be explained by the increased
performance in theory by the pusher configuration, including
6. Proposed design and its evaluation lower skin friction drag due to the fuselage, because placing
the propeller at the back allows for an undisturbed flow over
Several Mars Airplane configurations were studied in this the fuselage, as opposed to having the propeller wash directly
conceptual design. Two different configurations of the Mars on the fuselage and the wing root10).
Airplane are presented in this paper. While possessing very The axes of the hinges have an angle to the longitudinal
different features, they both fulfill the geometrical axis and the wing tip is thin. These allow for both sides of the
requirements set in the previous section, which shows the main wing to fold under the fuselage without interfering with
variety of the possibilities of the design. each other. Having both wings deploy from under the fuselage
6.1. Tractor configuration Mars Airplane assures that they will pivot along with the aerodynamic lift
A tractor configuration is often easier to balance, having a forces generated by the wings. This slightly reduces the risks
heavier nose, allowing for a shorter fuselage and a smaller tail during the deployment phase of the airplane. This deployment
area4). The tractor configuration Mars Airplane is shown in strategy is advantageous compared to the one employed for
Figure 8 with a description of the various design features and the tractor configuration.
parameters. The proposed tractor configuration Mars Airplane The pusher configuration also includes a twin tail boom
is a fairly simple design, and can transform and pack into the empennage design, because of the propeller located at the rear
aeroshell using hinges and a telescopic mechanism as of the fuselage. The length of the tail boom is shorter than the
discussed below. tractor configuration which implies a larger tail area.

Geometry
Geometry Pusher Configuration V-tail design Parameter Value
Blended Wing Fuselage V-tail design Parameter Value potentially higher performance  lower wetted surface
lower interference drag  low wetted surface Wing Span 2.6m
Wing Span 2.65m potentially lower drag × coupled roll-yaw control
high internal volume × coupled roll-yaw control Wing Area 1.25m2
Wing Area 1.2m2 Tapered Wing
Rectangular Wing Tail Length 1.3m
Tail Length 1.6m  large wing area
 large wing area  low induced drag Tail Area 0.22m2
× big induced drag Tail Area 0.13m2  aeroshell fitting

Telescopic Boom Twin Tail Booms

 small tail wing area  structurally stable
× complex deployment × higher mass

Blended Wing Fuselage Angled Wing Hinges and Notch

Tractor Configuration Notch Packed in the
Packed in the lower interference drag  allow folding into aeroshell
conventional design  allow folding into aeroshell Aeroshell
Aeroshell high internal volume  make a space for propeller folding
easier to balance × unknown aerodynamic effect × unknown aerodynamic effect

Fig. 8. The tractor configuration Mars Airplane. Fig. 9. The pusher configuration Mars Airplane.

A large rectangular wing is adopted for the main wing, Figure 10 shows the pusher configuration Mars Airplane in
which deploys from a stowed configuration as shown in the its packed state. As shown in a top view, the main wing is
Figure below. The main wing is separated into 3 sections and folded and fitted into the aeroshell using a notch and some
connected with hinges. The right wing of the airplane folds taper. Because of the angles on the hinges, the right and left

Te_9
 Trans. JSASS Aerospace Tech. Japan Vol. 10, No. ists28 (2012)

wing sections fold slightly forward. This provides room for
folding the propeller. However, the right main wing is
protruding to the lower side. Therefore the envelope of the
packed Mars Airplane was voluminous. Parallelizing the main
wing sections is effective in packing more compactly.
7. Conclusion
The conceptual design of the Mars Airplane was presented
to indicate the feasibility of this mission. For the
aerodynamics performance, a lift coefficient of 0.64 and the
lift-drag ratio of 9.4 were obtained, with a wing area of 1.2 m2.
Using this wing area, the folding method with hinges was
adopted as the deployment mechanism. As for the propulsion
performance, a rate of climb of 6.0 m/s was obtained using the
selected motor. As a result of the conceptual design, two
different Mars Airplane configurations were presented. It was
shown that a notch on wing makes packing easier to keep the
wing area maximized, making the Mars Airplane more
compact. In the future, this conceptual design will be more
closely refined. Experimental results obtained by the Mars
Exploration Airplane Working Group will also be reflected in
the design. Additional study points such as mass balancing,
stability, and deployment mechanism will be analyzed.

Acknowledgments

Fig. 10. The pusher configuration Mars Airplane in its packed state. This research is conducted as a contribution to the Mars
Exploration Airplane Working Group with the approval of the
The aeroshell was then refined to a more realistic shape. Space Engineering Steering Committee of Institute of Space
Then the pusher configuration Mars Airplane was changed to
and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration
fit to that. It is shown in Figure 11. The hinges on the wing
Agency.
were assembled asymmetrically. It allows folding the main
wing parallel. The empennage deployment mechanism was
changed to a folding type that uses four hinges. The shape of References
the tail wing was also changed to a trapezoid along the cone of
1) Kubota, T.: Japan’s Mars Exploration Plan, Proceedings of the
the upper aeroshell. The propeller also includes a folding
2nd Annual Symposium on Planetary Exploration, 2010.
mechanism. With these changes, the Mars Airplane can be 2) Hall, D. W., Parks, R. W., and Morris, S.: Airplane for Mars
stowed in the new aeroshell geometry, as seen in Figure 11. Exploration, Tech. rep., NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett
Federal Airfield, California, 1997.
3) Guynn, M. D., Croom, M. A., Smith, S. C., Parks, R. W., and
Geometry
Foldable Propeller Trapezoidal Tail Gelhausen, P. A.: Evolution of a Mars Airplane Concept for the
Parameter Value
 compact  fit to the aeroshell ARES Mars Scout Mission”, 2nd AIAA Unmanned Unlimited
Wing Span 2.6m
× complex Systems, Technologies, and Operations, AIAA paper 2003-6578.
Wing Area 1.25m2
4) Raymer, D. P.: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA
Tail Length 1.3m
Education Series.
Tail Area 0.21m2
5) Cessna Aircraft Company, Single Engine [Internet],
http://www.cessna.com/[2011-2-25].
Foldable Tail Booms 6) Scorpion Power System LTD, Motors, [Internet],
 simple http://www.scorpionsystem.com/catalog/motors/s22_series_v2/SI
I-2215-1127KV/ [2011/4/20].
7) SILICON SENSING SYSTEMS JAPAN, [Internet],
http://www.sssj.co.jp/products/applied/pdf/hmr230.pdf
Asymmetrically ssembled Hinges
 allow to fold the wing parallel
Packed in the [2011-2-25].
Aeroshell
8) Sanwa electronic instrument, Receiver, [Internet],
http://www.sanwa-denshi.co.jp/rx-01.html [2011/4/20].
Fig. 11. The changed pusher configuration Mars Airplane.
9) Futaba Corporation, Servo, [Internet],
http://www.rc.futaba.co.jp/servo/products/s3010.html
[2011/4/20].
10) Anderson, J. D. Jr.: Aircraft Performance and Design, Boston,
McGraw-Hill, 1999.

Te_10