AIAA 2001-2887

Conceptual Design of a 'SHARP'-CTV

David J. Kinney and Jeff V. Bowles

NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035

Lily H. Yang and Cathy D. Roberts

Raytheon ITSS
Moffett Field, CA 94035

35th AIAA Thermophysics Conference

11 - 14 June 2001
Anaheim, California

For permission to copy or to republish, contact the copyright owner named on the first page.
For AIAA-held copyright, write to AIAA Permissions Department,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA, 20191-4344.
 Conceptual Design of a 'SHARP' - CTV
David J. Kinney* and JeffV. Bowles t
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035
Lily H. Yang *and Cathy D. Roberts
Raytheon ITSS, Moffett Field, CA 94035
Abstract
The design of a crew transfer vehicle that makes
use of Ultra High Temperature Ceramics {UHTCs)
is investigated. The use of UHTCs may permit the
design of hypersonic re-entry vehicles with sharp
leading edges, which in turn lead to improved hyper-
sonic aerodynamic performance. The current crew
transfer vehicle is designed to meet the same mis-
sion and vehicle requirements as the NASA Langley
conceptual HL-20 crew transfer vehicle. A direct
comparison of the conventional blunt, lifting body
of the HL-20 to the current, sharp leading edge vehi-
cle highlights a number of important differences, the
primary one being the increased cross range capa-
bility of sharp leading edge vehicles. This increased
cross range can have a direct impact of the overall
vehicle safety during an abort situation, and pro-
vides a high degree of flexibility on selecting the re-
entry trajectory.
Introduction
The NASA Ames Research Center has an on going
research program for the development of Ultra High
Temperature Ceramics (UHTCs) as Thermal Pro-
tection Systems (TPS) for next generation reusable
launch vehicles. These UHTCs, examples being
Hafnium Diboride, and Zirconium Diboride, may
enable the design of vehicle leading edges with tem-
perature limits of above that for Advanced Carbon-
*Research Scientist, Senior Member AIAA
tResearch Scientist
* Research Scientist
§ Research Scientist
Copyright ©2001 by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. No coyright is asserted in the United
States under Title 17, U.S. Code. The U.S. Government has
a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright
claimed herein for Government purposes. All other rights are
reserved by the copyright owner.
1
§
Carbon (ACC). This material capability opens a de-
sign space that now includes the possibility of vehi-
cles with very sharp leading edges, perhaps leading
to increased hypersonic aerodynamic performance.
The Slender Hypersonic Aerothermodynamic Re-
search Program (SHARP) at NASA Ames has the
following goals to 1) develop UHTC materials, 2)
test these materials, and 3) investigate their use in
next generation vehicles. To date, two flight test
vehicles, the SHARP B-1 and B-2, have been flown
to investigate various UHTC compositions and inte-
gration issues. The B-1 vehicle, shown in figure 1,
was a modified re-entry vehicle with a sharp UHTC
nose. The B-2 vehicle, shown in figure 2, had re-
tractable fins to investigate the use of UHTCs for
swept leading edge devices. Both of these tests have
added to the knowledge base for the design and use
of UHTCs on next generation launch vehicles.
The SHARP 11 test vehicle, currently in devel-
opment, is shown in figure 3. The SHARP 11 is a
wedge like vehicle, with a hypersonic L/D over 3.
It is this vehicle that was initially posed as a pos-
sible crew transfer vehicle and initiated the study
resulting in the current vehicle design.
Design Methodology
The approach taken for the current study has been
to make use of engineering level design methods,
supported by computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
at both low and high Mach numbers,. as well as
low Mach number wind tunnel testing. Support-
ing analysis in the thermal protection system design
was used to improve the detail and understanding of
both the acreage and leading edge TPS design. Mul-
tiple iterations between the engineering level codes,
the CFD, and the wind tunnel have been used to
arrive at the final configuration. This approach is
presented graphically in figure 4.
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 2

Figure 3: Proposed SHARP L1 Flight Test Vehicle

Figure 1: SHARP Bl Flight Test Vehicle

!::•:. '\·-; .
--
Trajector:v Optimization
& Abort Analysis

CFD Analysis
Wind Tunnel Testing

Figure 4: HAVOC Integrated Design Process

Figure 2: SHARP B2 Flight Test Vehicle

AIAA Paper 2001-2887
HAVOC
The Ames Research Center developed hypersonic
aerospace vehicle optimization code (HAVOC) for
hypersonic vehicle synthesis is used to perform es-
timates of systems performance characteristics and
design specifications. It uses engineering analysis
methods to compute vehicle performance and design
characteristics, including aerodynamics and thermo-
dynamics, propulsion, structures, trajectory, and
system cost. In the design process, the synthesis
code closes the design to meet mission performance
requirements, matching vehicle weight and volume
required to that available.
Aero- and Thermo-dynamics
A summary of the aerodynamic methods used by
HAVOC is shown in figure 5. The subsonic and
transonic aerodynamics for a given configuration
are computed as functions of the free stream Mach
number, angle of attack, dynamic pressure, and the
gross geometric parameters for the body and wing.
Experimental or high-fidelity computational results
are used to calibrate the empirical methods in the
low-speed regime for the body, including the high-
subsonic, transonic, and low-supersonic base drag
model. In the supersonic and hypersonic speed
range, the fuselage pressure and aerodynamic forces
(lift and pressure drag) are computed using real-
gas tangent-wedge, tangent-cone, and other similar
independent panel methods. For the higher hyper-
sonic Mach number region, Newtonian methods are
used to compute surface pressure coefficients. Fric-
tion drag is computed using various reference en-
thalpy methods (e.g. Eckert or van Driest). The
engine-off base drag is computed using empirical re-
lations for the high-subsonic, transonic, and low-
supersonic speed range, and estimated at higher
Mach numbers using a 70% vacuum in the base re-
gion, (i.e. Cpbase = -1/M 2 ).
Calculation of the aerothermal environment be-
gins with the flight conditions along the vehicle tra-
jectory. With the flight conditions specified (i.e.
given free stream Mach number, angle of attack, and
free stream dynamic pressure), the boundary layer
edge conditions are computed for each surface panel.
Calculations of local skin friction and convective
heat transfer film coefficient involve an iteration to
balance the convective heat flux, the radiative heat
flux, and the conductive heat flux into the vehicle.
3
•SKINFRICTION
•BODYWAVE
WJNGWAVE Meyer Shock Expansion
BLUNTNESS I ~ & Newtonian
BASE 70%Vacuum
Figure 5: HAVOC Aerodynamic Methods
For the vehicle designs with exterior insulation, the
thermal energy conducted into the TPS is gener-
ally on the order of 5 percent of the total convective
heating. Neglecting this relatively small conduction
term in the surface energy balance results in a some-
what higher radiation equilibrium surface tempera-
ture, which is used as design margin for the TPS.
The reference Reynolds number is then computed
using the boundary layer edge velocity determined
from the independent panel method and the run-
ning length for that panel. The local skin friction
coefficients and local Stanton numbers are the calcu-
lated using the Reynolds analogy and the reference
Prandtl number with the appropriate formulation,
depending on laminar or turbulent flow conditions.
Finally, the convective heat film coefficient is com-
puted from the Stanton number, reference density,
and edge velocity. The local recovery enthalpy is
determined using the edge static enthalpy, the edge
velocity, and the edge Prandtl numbers, with the
Prandtl number correction factor for laminar or fully
turbulent flow as appropriate. The convective heat
flux is then computed. The radiative heat flux is
computed by determining the emissivity factor as a
function of TPS material distribution and the wall
temperature. The iteration loop is repeated until
the surface energy balance is achieved.
For blunt leading-edge heating calculations, a mod-
ified stagnation heating Faye-Ridell method [13] is
used. The hot wall heating rate is computed for
off stagnation conditions using a modified Lee's
method [14]. The stagnation point is determined
using a Newtonian model with the surface normal
co-linear with the free-stream velocity vector. The
actual wall temperature computed for stagnation re-
gions, or acreage areas, will generally differ from the
radiation equilibrium wall temperature computed
above. This conducting wall temperature depends
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
on the heating history along the trajectory. Up
to the peak heating point, heat is conducted into
the TPS, and the resulting wall temperature will
be lower than the non-conducting wall temperature.
After peak heating, the TPS begins to reject heat,
with the resulting conductive heat flux back to the
surface resulting in a higher wall temperature than
the non-conducting value.
Trajectory
A three degree of freedom model is used to compute
flight trajectories, using the equations of motion of
a point mass vehicle moving relative to a rotating,
spherical earth. The trajectory path is computed
using one of two methods [15]. For the first model,
an energy-state approximation is used, coupled to an
input schedule of Mach number versus altitude. The
second method specifies a set of control variables
(consisting of angle of attack, bank angle, throt-
tle setting, and gimbal angle), and then solves the
equations of motion using a first-order integration
method. The integration time step, and the control
variable settings are subject to a user specified set of
flight path constraints (maximum load factor, sur-
face temperature limits, etc.). For either model the
trajectory can be computed un-trimmed or trimmed
in pitch.
Structural Weights
As part of the aircraft structural weight, the items
estimated are: shell, walls, frames, tension ties,
span wise beam, non-optimum, and tank. The non-
optimum weight accounts for non-calculable weight
items, such as fasteners, welds, cutout reinforce-
ment, and manufacturing constraints.
The tank item is an estimate of the weight of a
discrete tank or of the bulkheads and other items
necessary to convert the body structure into an in-
tegral fuel tank. An option for non-circular vehicles
is an integral, pillow tank arrangement in which the
intersecting circular shells are fitted with the vehicle
outer mold line.
The body structural weight estimation method in
HAVOC is based on a one dimensional beam theory
structural analysis. The resulting weight estimate
is directly driven by material properties, load con-
ditions, vehicle size and shape. The weight estima-
tion method is not confined to an existing database.
Since the analysis is done station by station, along
4
the vehicle longitudinal axis, the distribution of the
loads and vehicle geometry is accounted for, pro-
viding an integrated weight that accounts for local
conditions.
The analysis begins with the calculation of vehi-
cle loads. Three types of loads are considered: (1)
longitudinal acceleration, (2) tank pressure, and (3)
bending moment. Four loading cases are computed:
(1) power on and tanks full, (2) power off and tanks
full, (3) power on and tanks empty (Main Engine
Cut Off (MECO) condition), and (4) power off and
tanks empty (entry condition).
It is assumed that the structural materials exhibit
elastoplastic behavior. The values of the properties
used are reduced by a percentage of the published,
minimum values to account for such effects are fa-
tigue, stress corrosion, creep, thermal cycling, and
thermal stresses that are not modeled as only cold
structures are considered.
The body weight analysis described has been ex-
tensively correlated. It has been applied to exist-
ing aircraft for the purpose of determining the non-
optimum portion of the structural weight.
TPS Weights
Estimation of TPS weight is based on transient,
one dimensional heat conduction analysis. The
aerothermal environments are computed as a func-
tion of time along the flight trajectory. The recov-
ery enthalpy, enthalpy based convective heat trans-
fer coefficient, local surface pressure, and adiabatic
temperature for each surface panel are stored for use
in the thermal analysis. A one dimensional materi-
als stack up is specified for each body point, with
associated internal boundary conditions (e.g. inter-
nal gas bulk temperature and film coefficient), and
internal radiation gap conditions input as a func-
tion of time. Soak out boundary conditions are also
specified. Material thermodynamic properties are
specified as a function of temperature and pressure.
The energy balance at the exterior surface is com-
puted using a temperature dependent emissivity for
the correspond TPS material. The TPS sizing pro-
cess then consists of iterating on the required insu-
lation thickness until all interior bond line tempera-
ture constraints are satisfied. Minimum gauge TPS
thickness constraints are also imposed.
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 5

Subsystem Weights

The weight and volume of the vehicle subsystems

are computed using correlation equations developed
for space-launch and hyper-velocity vehicles. Cor-
relation parameters typically used are related to
overall vehicle gross or empty weight, vehicle size,
and mission related requirements. Correction fac-
tors for each subsystem element are made available
to match .a specifically known subsystem compo-
nent weight. The subsystems accounted for are:
flight controls and actuation (electrical, hydraulic,
and pneumatic), power generation and distribution,
environment and life support, thermal control, and
propulsion feed systems.

RAM

The Rapid Aircraft Modeler (RAM) is a real time

CAD like tool for quickly defining geometry for
aerospace vehicles. RAM evolved from the AC-
SYNT /VPI institute project to provide a fast and
interactive means to generate geometry for the Air-
craft Synthesis (ACSYNT) code, used for subsonic Figure 6: RAM Model of HL-20
and supersonic aircraft design [1].
Figure 6 presents a RAM model of the HL-20 vehi-
cle. The user can quickly generate geometries built
up of components that are. parametrically defined.
For instance, the wing component can be driven
by specifying aspect ratios, spans, chords, sweeps,
and dihedral angle. Airfoil sections can be chosen
from a supplied list or read in from a user supplied
file. RAM has been tightly coupled with HAVOC,
as well as with a number of CFD codes such as FPS-
3D [3, 4], FELISA [2], and FlowCart [5].
In addition to the ease in which the RAM geom-
etry can be exported to CFD, the process of mov-
ing from RAM, to CAD, through to wind tunnel
model generation has been successfully performed
for a variety of geometries, including the current
SHARP CTV-v5 [12]. Figure 7 shows the wind tun-
nel model developed from the RAM model for the
current SHARP CTV configuration.

VORVIEW

While the aerodynamic methods used with HAVOC Figure 7: Wind Tunnel Model of SHARP CTV-v5
in the hypersonic range are sufficiently accurate, at
the low supersonic and subsonic range the empirical
methods used by HAVOC are inadequate to reason-
ably predict the low speed aerodynamic characteris-
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 6

tics. VORVIEW is a vortex lattice code based on the Aerothermal Performance Constraint (APC)
Lockheed VORLAX code [6]. A graphical user in-
terface, and an automated paneling routine has been
added to VORLAX to speed the process of concep-
tual vehicle aerodynamic assessment in the subsonic
to supersonic range. VORVIEW is tightly coupled _ 200000
to the RAM software, permitting the rapid analysis 3l
a RAM model. VORVIEW has automated the pro--;.
cess of calculating trimmed aerodynamics as well as -g
'
the prediction of stability and control derivatives. ~ - 100000

CFD

For this study, two primary CFD codes were used

to validate and enhance the HAVOC analysis. For 10000 20000 30000 40000
Mach numbers below about 3, a Multi-Block, Par- Velocity, Feet per Second
allel Navier Stokes solver was used. Reference [10]
details the methods used in the solver. For Mach Figure 8: APC Curve
numbers greater than 3, the real gas Navier Stokes
code GASP was used. GASP has been extensively
validated, and is discussed in references [8] and [9]. pled with a model of the aerothermodynamic envi-
ronment experienced by the vehicle. To define the
performance constraint curve, of altitude vs. veloc-
UHTC Thermal Analysis ity, an iterative process is performed. The altitude is
specified and the flight Mach number is iterated on
The integration of the UHTC materials into a CTV
until the Mach number at which the UHTC reaches
design, at the conceptual stage, is challenging. The
its maximum allowable temperature is found. A new
high temperature capabilities and high thermal con-
altitude is chosen, and the process is repeated until a
ductance of UHTCs lend themselves to their use on
complete altitude vs. velocity curve is created. The
sharp leading edges of vehicles such as the current
final Aerothermal Performance Constraint (APC)
CTV. These same properties, most notably the sec-
curve characterizes the performance capabilities of
ond, also drive the required level of analysis that
the UHTC material, as integrated on the vehicle.
must be performed to correctly characterize the ma-
The curve defines a constraint line in velocity- alti-
terial's response to the aerothermal environment.
tude space, above which the material will survive
When integrated onto the leading edge of a ve-
and below which ablation and ultimately failure of
hicle, the UHTC materials will encounter very high
the material will occur.
temperatures and large heat rates. Because of their
An example of a typical UHTC APC curve is
high. conductivity these materials actually conduct
shown in figure 8. For this study, the HAVOC pre-
this heat away from the UHTC leading edge. At
some point, down stream of the leading edge, the dicted trajectories were at all times constrained by
the predicted APC curve for the UHTC configura-
heat is re-radiated or convected back into the flow
field. The remaining heat is conducted into the vehi- tion under analysis. The equivalent analysis for a
cle structure. This multi-dimensional heat transfer blunt vehicle would be the Faye-Ridell method of
reference [13]. For both blunt and sharp vehicles
problem is complex and can not be adequately mod-
the acreage thermal analysis described above still
eled with the simpler one dimensional heat transfer
applies.
methods generally used over the acreage of the ve-
hicle.
For the current study, a detailed analysis of the Baseline Vehicle and Design Requirements
UHTC leading edges was performed. The details
of this analysis are covered in reference [7]. Briefly, The HL-20 Crew Transfer Vehicle, described in ref-
the method of reference [7] consists of a two dimen- erences [16] through [30] was chosen as the baseline,
sional finite element heat transfer model that is cou- blunt, crew transfer vehicle concept. The HL-20 was
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
analyzed in detail at the NASA Langley research
center in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
The HL-20 was conceived to provide a Person-
nel Launch System (PLS) in support of the Space
Shuttle to provide crew transfer to and from the
then named Space Station Freedom. The require-
ments placed on the HL-20 vehicle are similar, but
not identical to those currently being discussed for
the 2nd Generation Launch System. The current
study has adopted these same requirements to allow
a direct comparison of the SHARP CTV design with
the more conventional blunt HL-20.
While references [16] through [30] detail these re-
quirements, we list just a subset to highlight the
requirements:
1. Reusable
2. 8 passengers and 2 crew
3. Launch on an expendable launch vehicle
4. Cabin pressure of 14.7 psia
5. On orbit ~V of 1100 fps
6. Maximum on orbit time of 72 hours
7. On pad abort escape capability
8. 10 psi overpressure driven by abort
9. 8g's longitudinal acceleration driven by abort
10. Subsonic L/D greater than 4 driven by landing
The 10 psi overpressure limit, and the 8g longitudi-
nal acceleration requirements come out of a need to
assure safe escape in the event of an on pad booster
failure. The 8g limit assures the HL-20 is capable of
being boosted away from the pad to a point approx-
imately 430 feet away from the exploding booster,
at which point the blast pressure is estimated to be
approximately 10 psi [28].
Analysis of the HL-20
The HL-20 is a lifting body configuration, with his-
torical ties to the NASA HL-10, M2-F2, Air Force
X-24, and the Russian BOR-4 [16]. A RAM model
of the HL-20 is shown in figure 6. The details of the
HL-20 configuration can be found in references [16]
through [30].
7
Hypersonic Lift to Drag Ratio
HL-20, Mach 15
0.5
-..
ii:;
...I
- - GASP Solution, Mach 15
0 ------ HAVOC Solution, Mach 15
o Wind Tunnel, Mach 10
- 0 ·5 o.____1..._0_ _2......o_ __.30-~...
4....
o~___.50
Angle of Attack, degrees
Figure 9: Lift to Drag Ratio Comparisons
HAVOC was used to predict the aerodynamic
and aerothermodynamic environments of the HL-
20. The wind tunnel data of reference [17], along
with CFD, was used to calibrate the HAVOC pre-
dictions in the subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic
speed range. A comparison of the HAVOC, GASP,
and wind tunnel data at Mach 15 is presented in fig-
ure 9. The HAVOC engineering methods are seen to
match the wind tunnel and CFD data very closely.
Figures 10 and 11 compare the CFD, VORVIEW,
and wind tunnel data at a subsonic Mach number
of 0.3. VORVIEW was used to predict the trimmed
aerodynamics of the HL-20 and the results of that
analysis are also shown in Figures 10 and 11.
Using the HAVOC predicted aerodynamic and
aerothermodynamic data base the HL-20's reentry
trajectory was analyzed and compared to that pre-
sented in reference [20]. The HL-20 weight and size
reported in reference [25] were used for this part
of the study. The HAVOC altitude reentry pro-
file is compared in figure 12 with the results of ref-
erence [20]. The HAVOC approach to flying the
reentry trajectory was to maintain a constant heat-
ing rate, while limiting the maximum stagnation
point temperature to below that acceptable for Ad-
vanced Carbon-Carbon (ACC). Figures 13, 14, and
15 present the heat rate history, angle of attack and
bank schedule, as well as the vehicle lift to drag ratio
during reentry.
With the HAVOC trajectory providing a good
comparison to that presented in reference [20], HAVOC
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 8

Subsonic Trimmed and Untrimmed CL Altitude Profile

HL-20 HL-20 Re-Entry Profile
400000
a Wind Tunnel Untrimmed
-- Navier Stokes Untrimmed - - HAVOC
0.6 --- VORVIEW Untrimmed
300000 ------ Wurster & Stone
....J o Wind Tunnel Trimmed ,~' _....
(.) . ..,/-'U ,..,.. ..0...
---- VORVIEWTrimmed ,,- ...- -a;
1=
-~ 0.4 ;,
., ,. , ... . . . . o ~
, ..........0 <Ii
0
. 200000
uf',..,.. .~
;, -0
;,
:::o; .a
~
0.2
(.) ~~ .
5 100000

- 0 ·2 oL.----'5'--~---'10-~--1-'-5-~---'20 0
0 1000 2000 3000
Angle of Attack, degrees
Time, seconds

Figure 10: HL20: CL Comparison

Figure 12: HL-20 Re-Entry: Altitude

Subsonic Trimmed and Untrimmed UD Stagnation Point Heat Flux

HL-20 HL-20 Re-Entry Profile

4 a -
------- a
~
Cl
--
:E
....J
2
a Wind Tunnel Untrimmed
- - Navier Stokes Untrimmed
0 ---- VORVIEW Untrimmed
o Wind Tunnel Trimmed
I ----· VORVIEW Trimmed
a
-2
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1000 2000 3000
Lift Coefficient, CL Time, seconds

Figure 11: HL20: L/D Comparison Figure 13: HL-20 Re-Entry: Heat Flux
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 9

Cross Range
HL-20 Re-Entry Profile

Angle of Attack and Bank Angle Schedule 1~ 800

HL-20 Re-Entry Profile
100 . - - - ~ - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - , ~
;
- - Angle of Attack
-----w Bank Angle
~ 600
ti)
Q) 80 •
,.,
" I
z
~
I I
•
C) _____ .!'I \ "' 400
Q)
"C
I
,""
.:,l
60 \ : 1___ 1

C
'I I I
I I
I
co '
I II 'I 200
al I I I

0 40 '' I I

co '' ,,
I '
'
I 0 '------=:;;._____.______.
I
.s::.
a.
<( 20 I ''
'
0 2000 4000 6000
Down Range, Nautical Miles
0 .___ _ ___,__ _ __.__.__ _ ___.
Figure 16: HL-20 Re-Entry: Cross Range
0 1000 2000 3000
Time, seconds
was then used to size the HL-20 vehicle. Structural,
Figure 14: HL-20 Re-Entry: Alpha and Bank TPS, and subsystem weights were predicted using
the HAVOC methods previously described. The
weight statements of reference [25] were then used
to calibrate the HAVOC results. The weight break
down, as predicted by HAVOC, is shown in table 1.
The TPS stack up for the HL-20 is presented in fig-
ure 32.

Lift to Drag Ratio SHARP Crew Transfer Vehicle

HL-20 Re-Entry Profile
2.2 ..---~----.-----~---~
The vehicle requirements for the SHARP CTV are
the same as those listed above for the HL-20. The
2 application of UHTCs to the current SHARP vehi-
cle have been limited to the sharp nose region. The
g> 1.8 wing leading edges remain blunt and are baselined
0 as ACC. Figure 17 illustrates the evolution of the
-.. SHARP CTV concept. The study began .with the
:5 1.6 shape of the proposed 11 flight vehicle, show in fig-
ure 3, and attempted to pack and size the vehicle to
1.4 meet the HL-20 mission. Questions about this con-
figuration's ability to safely land initially drove the
1.2 ==----_..._____,....____ _i decision to do low speed wind tunnel tests of the 11
0 1000 2000 3000 configuration, shown in figure 18.
Time, seconds The hypersonic performance of these configura-
tions, and its implication to the vehicle design are
Figure 15: HL-20 Re-Entry: L/D illustrated in figures 19 and 20. Representative hy-
personic lift to drag ratios and moments for both
the HL-20 and SHARP CTV-v5 are presented in
figures 19 and 20. The much higher L/D of the
SHARP CTV is evident, as is the lower angle of at-
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
SHARP-VS
Figure 17: SHARP CTV Evolution
Figure 18: SHARP 11 Low Speed Model
10
Hypersonic Lift to Drag Ratio Comparison
HL-20 and SHARP CTV-v5, Mach 20
3 ..-~--.-~"""T"----.----r-~--,
,,.,.---- ......
2 ,' ' --....... --
-- --
:'
,,'
,'
' ------ ...........
,,
0 - - HL20
-----· SHARP CTV -v5
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle of Attack, degrees
Figure 19: HL-20 and SHARP CTV 1/Ds
tack at which the maximum L/D occurs. The peak
L/D for these SHARP vehicles is generally at rel-
atively low angles of attack, and hence low lift co-
efficients. For a given reentry weight, the SHARP
vehicles will generally require a lower wing loading
to effectively generate the same amount of lift. As a
rule of thumb, the maximum L/D of these SHARP
vehicles correlates closely with the half angle of the
wedge like body, with a small correction due to vis-
cous effects.
Finally, figure 20 shows how the natural trim
points for both vehicles matches the style in which
they are flown. The HL-20 naturally trims at ap-
proximately 30 degrees angle of attack with the cen-
ter of gravity (CG) located at 54 % of the body
length. This is consistent with the current trajec-
tory results, as well as the results of reference [20).
The SHARP CTV-v5 CG trims at approximately
15 degrees angle of attack with the CG located at
57.5% of the body length. This is again consistent
with figure 28 which presents the SHARP CTV-v5
control history during reentry.
Referring back to figure 17, the SHARP CTV-
v5, is characterized by large, swept wings. These
wings aid in the vehicles ability to make use of its
maximum hypersonic L/D. However, the planform
and span of the wings were most strongly driven by
the low speed wind tunnel results of the initial 11
configuration (figure 18).
The 11 low speed wind tunnel test indicated a
very large base drag for the 11 fuselage shape. Pres-
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
Hypersonic Moment Comparison
HL-20 and SHARP CTV-v5, Mach 20
0.04 - - HL-20
------ SHARP ClV-v5
0.02
0
-0.02
~
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle of Attack, degrees
Figure 20: HL-20 and SHARP CTV Moments
sure taps showed a very low base pressure coeffi-
ceint of approximately -0.35, resulting in a very
high base drag. This base drag data, along with
the CFD code of reference[lO], was used to predict
the subsonic aerodynamics of the SHARP CTV-v5
configuration. The CFD results were used to cali-
brate the VORVIEW vortex lattice code (through
the use of leading edge suction and wake parame-
ters). VORVIEW was used to estimate the trimmed
aerodynamics of the candidate SHARP vehicle con-
figurations. The estimated untrimmed L/D max of
the final SHARP CTV-v5 configuration was slightly
over 5, with a trimmed L/D max slightly under 4.
To validate the analysis, a wind tunnel test of the
SHARP CTV-v5 was performed [12]. The wind tun-
nel tests showed a much lower base drag, the result
of a base pressure coefficient of only -0.05.
The CFD and VORVIEW results, combined with
the SHARP CTV-v5 wind tunnel data for base drag
estimates are compared with the wind tunnel data
of reference [12] in figures 22 through 24. Figures 22
and 23 show the CFD and VORVIEW predictions of
lift and moment to be reasonably accurate. The pre-
diction of L/D as a function of lift coefficient is pre-
sented in figure 24. Both the CFD and VORVIEW
results are conservative. The untrimmed SHARP
CTV-v5 has an L/D max greater than 8.
Figures 22 and 24 present the trimmed aerody-
namic predictions based on the VORVIEW vortex
lattice code. A trimmed L/D max slightly over 5 is
estimated. The analysis was based on the modeling
11
Figure 21: SHARP CTV-v5
of full span elevons (from the dihedral break point
out to the tip). Based on the VORVIEW analy-
sis, control surface chords approaching 45% of the
wind chord, and deflections of 30 degrees are re-
quired to trim the SHARP CTV-v5 during landing.
These trim issues are addressed at the end of this
paper with regards to current and future work on
the SHARP CTV family of vehicles.
Referring to figure 21, the interior layout of the
SHARP CTV-v5 is similar to that of the HL-20. An
interior, pressurized, crew compartment comprises
the main load bearing system. Many of the sub-
systems are packed exterior to the pressurized crew
compartment - a strategy borrowed from the HL-20
design. Except where the larger size of the vehi-
cle mandates, the subsystems are identical to that
of HL-20. Using the same mission, and the weight
estimation correlations from the analysis of the HL-
20, the SHARP CTV-v5 vehicle was analyzed and
closed.
Figures 26 through 29 present the SHARP CTV-
v5 trajectory predicted by HAVOC. The closed ve-
hicle subsystem weights are presented in table 1.
The current analysis does not include the weight
or design of the UHTC leading edge, as this is cur-
rently beyond the capability of the one dimensional
heat transfer analysis performed with HAVOC. The
 AIAA Paper 2001-2887 12

Subsonic Trimmed and Untrimmed CL

Subsonic Trimmed and Untrimmed UD
SHARP C1V-v5
1.5 -----,----.----.----.---.---, SHARP C1V-v5

□
....I □
(_) □
□ ,,- --
0.5 □,,,''
□
,,,,.,
,,
.,,-.,,,. --- ----
5
□

□ 9-,' ---"
q,," -- --
:E
~-- / □ Wind Tunnel Untrimmed ....I
0 □ □ Wind Tunnel Untrimmed
0 □□ -- Navier Stokes Untrimmed - - Navier Stokes Untrimmed
----- VORVIEW Untrimmed ----- VORVIEW Untrimmed
---- VORVIEW Trimmed □ ---· VORVIEW Trimmed
-o. 5 _L- - '-__._s_ _.10__1_._5_ _.2~0-2......5--:>30 -5 L__ _,...__ _,___ _.,___---:-'
5 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1.5
Angle of Attack, degrees
Lift Coefficient, CL

Figure 22: SHARP CTV-v5: CL Comparison

Figure 24: SHARP CTV-v5: L/D Comparison

Subsonic Moment Predictions

SHARP C1V-v5
0.1
□ Wind Tunnel

E 0.05 - - Navier Stokes

(_)
------ VORVIEW
'ECl) □
0
:Q
i -0.05
8
'E
Cl) -0.1
E
0
~ -0.15
-0.2 L__ _.,__~_....__~_......___ _....J
-0.5 0 0.5 1.5
Lift Coefficient, CL
Figure 25: SHARP CTV-v5 Low Speed Model
Figure 23: SHARP CTV-v5: Cm Comparison
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 13

HL-20 CTV-v5 Altitude - Velocity Profile

SHARP CTV-v5
Re-Entry Weight, lbs 24479 25841 400000 .--~-~--~-~--.--~---.
Empty Weight, lbs 19982 21377
Fuselage Weight, lbs 3513 3081
Wing Weight, lbs 1176 2180 300000
Landing Gear, lbs 1164 1210
Propulsion Weight, lbs 1370 1436 j
Fixed Equipment, lbs
Payload and Crew, lbs
10595
3771
10805
3771
t
:t::
200000

Consumables, lbs 726 726 ~

Acreage TPS lbs/sqr ft avg 1.3 1.74 100000
Body Length, ft 28.6 36.6 - - SHARP CTV-v5
Wetted Area, sqr ft ---- APC Curve
935 1486 0 ...__ __........._ _ _..___ ___.__ ___,
Reference Area, sqr ft 286.45 347.9
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
W /S, lbs/sqr ft 66.9 50.1
Velocity, feet per second
Center of Gravity, % Body 54.0 57.5

Table 1: HL-20 and SHARP CTV-v5 Vehicle Data Figure 26: SHARP CTV-v5: Altitude vs. Velocity

Aerothermal Performance Constraint {APC) curve
described above, and discussed in reference [7], has
been used to include the material constraints of the
UHTC leading edge. The TPS stack up for the
acreage TPS of the SHARP CTV-v5 configuration
is presented in figure 33.
Figure 26 presents the altitude vs. velocity pro-
file for the SHARP CTV-v5 plotted against the
aerothermal performance constraint as predicted with
the methods of reference [7]. The SHARP CTV-
v5 trajectory drops down onto the APC and rides
the constraint until a point at which it leaves the
curve and begins to fly a maximum L/D trajectory.
Figure 29 shows the SHARP CTV-v5 to have more
than 2.5 times the cross range as the HL-20. Refer-
ence [11] details how this increased cross range ca-
pability can be used to improve the abort capability
of a SHARP CTV over a more conventional blunt
vehicle such as the HL-20.
The weight and geometry data presented in ta-
ble 1 highlight a number of important points. The
first of these is the size difference between the SHARP
CTV-v5 and the HL-20. As detailed above, the size
of the SHARP CTV-v5 was driven by the low angle
of attack at which the hypersonic L/D is a max-
imum, as well as the estimated low speed perfor-
mance of the vehicle. The second point is the sim-
ilarity in the gross weight of both the HL-20 and
the SHARP CTV-v5, despite the differences in size.
The main driver for this similarity is that the fuse-
lage wetted area for the HL-20 is approximately 935
square feet, while the SHARP CTV-v5 is 861 square
feet. The lower fuselage wetted area, combined with
the fact that both vehicles are constrained by min-
imum gauge structures, leads to a lower fuselage
weight for the SHARP CTV-v5. This lower fuse-
lage weight offsets the higher wing and landing gear
weights, resulting an overall weights similar to the
HL-20.
The final point to made from the data in table 1
and the altitude histories shown in figure 27 is the
higher acreage TPS weight per square foot seen with
the SHARP CTV-v5. This overall increase in the
SHARP CTV-v5 TPS weight is a direct result of
the increased integrated heat load incurred while fly-
ing the APC to provide increase cross range. The
increased cross range results in a longer heat soak
and drives the requirement for a thicker TPS system
compared to the HL-20.
Low Speed Issues and Current Work
The SHARP CTV-v5, and the SHARP family of
Crew Transfer Vehicles is a continuing area of re-
search at NASA Ames Research Center. As dis-
cussed above, CFD and wind tunnel testing was
used to initially size the wings and define the plan-
form of the SHARP CTV-v5. Subsequent CFD
analysis and verification by low speed wind tunnel
tests have verified that at low speeds the SHARP
CTV-v5 has: 1) less base drag than estimated using
the L1 data, and 2) has a trimable maximum sub-
 AIAA Paper 2001-2887 14

Cross Range
SHARP CTV-v5
3000
rn
Altitude Profile ~ 2500
SHARP CTV-v5 ~
400000 «i
.Q 2000
:i
- - SHARP ClV-v5 ca
z 1500
---- HL-20 ai
300000 C>
C
a> ca
a: 1000
2
rn
ai 200000 rn
"O
::,
:t::
e
C)
500
~
0
100000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Down Range, Nautical Miles

0 Figure 29: SHARP CTV-v5: Cross Range

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time, seconds
sonic L/D just over 5 [12]. Based on the study found
Figure 27: SHARP CTV-v5: Altitude in reference [19] a trimable L/D over 4 is generally
required to gain a Cooper Harper Level 1 rating for
piloted landing. However, as discussed above the
control required elevon deflections are excessive and
points to the need for revisiting both the vehicle lay-
out and wing planform design.
The above low speed issues, as well as high speed
heating issues discovered with the GASP code [8, 9]
Angle of Attack and Bank Angle Schedule drove modifications of the SHARP CTV-v5 config-
SHARP CTV-v5 uration. The current configuration, SHARP CTV-
v7, shown in figure 30 has a smaller wing planform
- Angle of Attack
1 I
r- - - - Bank Angle with more area forward. The wing twist distribu-

I5r 80 I \
I \
I
I
--
\
\
tion has been designed, using both the VORVIEW
and HAVOC code, to minimize the required control
"O
\ surface deflections at both subsonic and hypersonic
60 \
~ \
\
Mach numbers. The reduction of dihedral is the out-
!ii
al
\
\ come of both a linear stability analysis and a desk-
\
0 40 top 6 degree of freedom simulation that indicated
ca '' ' ,_..,. I\JI the sweep of the wings produce sufficient dihedral
-§_
<i: 20 effect. Finally, the interior layout of the subsystems
has been rearranged to aid in trimming of the vehi-
cle.
1000 2000 3000 4000 The SHARP CTV-v7 is currently undergoing fur-
Time, seconds ther analysis and design. Both Euler and Navier
Stokes analyses are being used to analyze the SHARP
Figure 28: SHARP CTV-v5: Alpha and Bank CTV-v7. A combination of Euler, Navier Stokes,
wind tunnel, and engineering based methods will
be used to model the full set of aerodynamic data
needed for a full motion vehicle simulation planned
for the fall of 2001 in the NASA Ames Research Cen-
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
'f
Figure 30: RAM Model of SHARP CTV-v7
Figure 31: NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator
ter Vertical Motion Simulation, figure 31. Work is
currently under way to develop the guidance, navi-
gation, and control systems required. The goal is a
head to head fly off of the HL-20 and the SHARP
CTV-v7 that will provide valuable data to aid in the
refinement of the SHARP CTV designs.
Conclusions
The conceptual design of a SHARP Crew Trans-
fer Vehicle has been presented. NASA Langley Re-
search Center's extensive and detailed work on the
HL-20 Personnel Launch System has been leveraged
upon to both benchmark the current results and to
15
act as a baseline to the SHARP CTV designs. The
results show that a SHARP configuration can lead to
higher hypersonic lift to drag ratio and correspond-
ing improvements in cross range. This improvement
must be tempered with the need for a larger overall
vehicle, capable of making use of the higher hyper-
sonic L/D's which generally occur at much lower an-
gles of attack than typically flown by blunt reentry
vehicles. The current conceptual study does not ad-
dress the actual design and integration of the Ultra
High Temperature Ceramics (UHTCs) that are be-
lieved to allow the design and fabrication of such
a vehicle. The UHTC material constraints have
been introduced, to first order, through trajectory
constraints via the use of aerothermal performance
constraints that characterize the behavior of the
UHTCs over the vehicle trajectory. More detailed
study is required to further characterize the actual
design and integration of the UHTCs into the vehi-
cle leading edge.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded under the 2nd Gen-
eration Reusable Launch Vehicle Office at NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center. The authors would
like to thank Steve Smith of NASA Ames Research
Center for access to the wind tunnel models and
data for both the SHARP Ll and SHARP CTV-v5
configurations.
[1] S.G. Wampler, A. Myklebust, S. Jayaram, and
P. Gelhausen. "Improving Aircraft Concep-
tual Design ~ a PHIGS Interactive Graphics In-
terface for ACSYNT". AIAA Paper 88-4481,
September 1988.
[2] J. Peraire, J. Peiro, and K. Morgan. "FELISA
SYSTEM". Reference and User's Manual, De-
cember 1993.
[3] D.J. Kinney. "Finite Element Solution of the
Full Potential Equation Over Aircraft Configu-
rations Using Unstructured Tetrahedral Grids".
PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering, University of Cali-
fornia at Davis, 1994.
[4] D.J. Kinney, M.M. Hafez, and P.A. Gelhausen.
"Validation of a New Unstructured Full Poten-
tial Formulation". AIAA Paper 95-1765, June
1995.
AIAA Paper 2001-2887
[5] M.J. Aftosmis, M.J. Berger, and G. Adomavi-
cius. "A parallel multilevel method for adap-
tively refined Cartesian grids with embedded
boundaries". AIAA Paper 2000-0808, January
2000.
[6] L.R. Miranda, R.D. Elliot, and W.M. Baker.
"A Generalized Vortex Lattice Method for
Subsonic and Supersonic Flow Applications".
NASA Contractor Report 2865, Contract
NASl-12972, December 1977.
[7] D. Kontinos, K. Gee, and D. Prabhu. "Temper-
ature Constraints at the Sharp Leading Edge of
a Crew Transfer Vehicle". AIAA Paper 2000-
2886, June 2000.
[8] Aerosoft, Inc. 1872 Pratt Drive, Blacksbug, VA,
24060-6363. "GASP Version 3 user's Manual",
1996.
[9] D.K. Prabhu, M.J. Wright, J.G. Marvin, J.L.
Brown, and E. Vekatapathy. "X-33 Aerother-
mal Design Environment Predictions: Verifica-
tion and Validation". AIAA Paper 2000-2686,
June 2000.
[10] J. Reuther, J. Alonso, J. Vassberg, A. Jam-
son, and L. Martinelli. "An efficient multiblock
method for aerodynamics analysis and design
on distributed memory systems". AIAA Paper
97-1893, June 1997.
[11] D. Saunders, G. Allen Jr., P. Gage, and
J. Reuther. "CTV Trajectory Optimization".
AIAA Paper 2000-2885, June 2000.
[12] S. Smith, J. Reuther, and D. Kinney. "Low
Speed Aerodynamic and Landing Characteris-
tics of Sharp-Class Crew Transfer Vehicle Con-
cepts". AIAA Paper 2000-2888, June 2000.
[13] J.A. Faye and F.R. Riddell. "Theory of Stag-
nation Point Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air" .
Journal of Aerospace Sciences, 25(121):54-67,
1958.
[14] L Lee. "Laminar Heat Transfer Over Blunt
Nosed Bodies at Hypersonic Flight Speeds".
Jet Propulsion, 26(4):54-67, 1956.
[15] R. Windhorst, M. Ardema, and J. Bowles.
"Minimum Heating Entry Trajectories for
Reuseable Launch Vehicles". AIAA Journal of
SpaceCraft and Rockets, 35(5):672-682, 1998.
16
[16] Howard W. Stone and William M. Piland.
"21st Century Space Transportation System
Design Approach: HL-20 Personnel Launch
System". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and
Rockets, 30(5):521-528, September-October
1993.
[17] George M. Ware and Christopher I. Cruz.
"Aerodynamic Characteristics of the HL-20".
AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets,
30(5):529-536, September-October 1993.
[18] Richard W. Powell. "Six-Degree-of-Freedom
Guidance and Control-Entry Analysis of the
HL-20". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and
Rockets, 30(5):537-542, September-October
1993.
[19] Bruce E. Jackson, Robert A. Rivers, and
Melvin L. Bailey. "Effect of Lift-to-Drag Ra-
tion in Pilot Rating of the HL-20 Landing
Task". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and Rock-
ets, 30(5):543-548, September-October 1993.
[20] K.E. Wurster and H.W. Stone. "Aerodynamic
Heating Environment Definition/Thermal Pro-
tection System Selection for the HL-20". AIAA
Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):549-
557, September-October 1993.
[21] James K. Weilmuenster and Francis A. Greene.
"HL-20 Computational Fluid Dynamic Analy-
sis". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets,
30(5):558-566, September-October 1993.
[22] Lance B. Bush, James C. Robinson, and Deb-
orah M. Wahls. "Preliminary Structural Eval-
uation and Design of the HL-20". AIAA Jour-
nal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):567-572,
September-October 1993.
[23] Carl F. Ehrlich Jr. "HL-20 Concept: De-
sign Rational and Approach". AIAA Jour-
nal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):573-581,
September-October 1993.
[24] David M. Urie, Paul A. Floreck, John A. Mc-
Morris, and John D. Elvin. "Design for Effec-
tive Development and Prototyping of the HL-
20". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets,
30(5):582-589, September-October 1993.
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 17

[25] H. W. Stone and I.O. MacConochie. "HL-20

Subsystem Design". AIAA Journal of Space-
Craft and Rockets, 30(5):590-596, September-
October 1993.
[26] W. Douglas Morris and Nancy H. White. "HL-
20 Operations and Support Requirements for
the Personnel Launch System Mission". AIAA
Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):597-
605, September-October 1993.
[27] Kelli F. Willshire, Lisa C. Simonsen, and
William L. Willshire Jr. "Human Factors Eval-
uation of the HL-20 Full-Scale Model". AIAA
Journal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):606-
614, September-October 1993.
[28] Scott W. Benson, Brian A. Beaver, Amy L.
Edelman, and Elizabeth H. Sholes. "Ti-
tan III Feasibility for HL-20 Prototype Mis-
sions". AIAA Journal of SpaceCraft and Rock-
ets, 30(5):615--621, September-October 1993.
[29] James B. Duffy, Jack W. Lehner, and Bill Pan-
nell. "Evaluation of the National Launch Sys-
tem as a Booster for the HL-20". AIAA Jour-
nal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):622--627,
September-October 1993.
[30] J.C. Naftel and T.A. Talay. "Ascent Abort
Capability for the HL-20". AIAA Jour-
nal of SpaceCraft and Rockets, 30(5):628--633,
September-October 1993.
AIAA Paper 2001-2887 18

nose, chines, flaps,

wing leading edge windward surface leeward surface

! ! !
O.l"ACC 0.0.12" RCG Coatin!:! 0.027" outer sheet
(~Quartz)
6"Gae HTP-6
AFRSI
Ll-2200 0.0625" GP Face Sheet
(GP: Gr!e!!ite Polyimide) 0.011" inner sheet
0,02"RTV (E-glass)
0.5"GPHon~comb
0.09" AL-2219 0.02"RTV
0.0625" .GP Face Sheet
0.09" AL-2219
6"Gae

0.5'' Q-Felt

0.02"RTV

0.09" AL-2219

Figure 32: HAVOC: HL-20 TPS Stackup

nose, chines, flaps, max. temperature

wing leading edge 2500 °F X > 26'

! ! !
0.027" outer sheet
0.1"ACC 0.1"TUFI (Astro-Quanz)

6"Gap AETB-12 Q-felt (microquartz)

0.011" inner sheet
Ll-2200 0.02"RTV (E-glass)

0.02"RTV 0.0625" GP Face Sheet 0.02"RTV

(GP: Graphite Polyirride)
0.09" AL-2219 0.09" AL-2219
0.5" GP Hone;i::comb

0.0625" GP Face Sheet

6"Gae

1.0" Q-Felt

O.OZ"RTV

0.09" AL-2219

Figure 33: HAVOC: SHARP CTV-v5 TPS Stackup