The document summarizes the conceptual design of the Horizon I, a commercial suborbital spacecraft being developed by Stella Nova Aeronautics. It includes sizing calculations to determine the wing area, takeoff and landing distances, and climb rate showing the design meets requirements. The landing gear and structural/stability requirements are also summarized. The document promotes Horizon I as the safest and most comfortable option for commercial spaceflight based on using proven components and materials.

1. STELLA NOVA
AERONAUTICS
Suchita Shakya – Project Manager
Sizing Engineer
Systems Engineer for Landing Gear
CAPSTONE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT 2014-2015
MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING PRORGRAM
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARLINGTON
Woolf Hall
500 W. First street
Arlington, TX 76012

2. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF
HORIZON I
The future of commercial suborbital flight!
Stella Nova Aeronautics- Conceptual Design – Horizon I
2

3. INTER DISCIPLINARY FLOW CHART FOR
SIZING
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie
3

4. WING PLANFORM AND AIRFRAME
4
Trapezoidal Vs. Double Delta
Wide Body Vs Slender Body
• 18 m long and 2.5 m wide – Wide
body
• 18.75 m long and 2.0 m wide –
Slender body
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

5. FINAL AIRFRAME
5
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

6. ROSKAM’S METHOD WEIGHT
 First Estimation
 Take off Weight= 45000 lbs.
 Empty weight = 22500 lbs.
 Payload weight = 1800 lbs.
 Weight of Fuel = 20700 lbs.
 Second Estimation
 Take off Weight = 43000 lbs.
 Empty Weight = 21500 lbs.
 Payload weight = 1800 lbs.
 Weight of Fuel = 19700 lbs.
6
Error Percentage
Weight = 3.8 % [Geometry& Weight ]
Comparison made
with Geometry
and Weight Team
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

7. WING SIZING –ROSKAM’S METHOD
7
• Initial total take off weight 45000 lbs. & Roskam’s historical data for
Military Fighters
• Varying the power off stall speed wing size is estimated and
compared with calculation done with data from historical data base
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie
CL max-1.2 C Lmax - 1.6 CL Max-1.8
Vstall wing area wing area wing area
102.00 3032.84 2274.63 2021.90
137.56 1667.61 1250.71 1111.74
173.11 1052.93 789.71 701.95
208.66 724.68 543.54 483.12
244.22 529.03 396.77 352.69
279.78 403.11 302.33 268.74
315.33 317.33 238.00 211.55
350.89 256.28 192.21 170.85
386.44 211.29 158.47 140.86
422.00 177.18 132.89 118.12
First Iteration Second Iteration
CL max-1.4 C Lmax - 1.6 CL Max-1.8
Vstall wing area wing area wing area
102.00 2898.05 2484.04 2173.53
118.84 2134.84 1829.86 1601.13
135.68 1637.75 1403.78 1228.312
152.53 1296.03 1110.88 972.026
169.37 1051.09 900.93 788.320
186.21 869.55 745.33 652.16
203.05 731.28 626.81 548.46
219.89 623.55 534.47 467.66
236.74 537.99 461.13 403.49
253.58 468.89 401.91 351.67

8. SIZING TO TAKE OFF
 𝑺 𝑻𝒐𝒇𝒍 = 𝟑𝟕. 𝟓(𝑾/𝑺)/{𝝈𝑪 𝑳 𝑴𝒂𝒙 (𝑻/𝑾)} = [820 ft -10000 ft]
 Assumption Made – Fuel Burned is very small
 It depends heavily on the Take-off weight, Velocity at take
off T/W ratio, Pilot Technique
 𝑺 𝑻𝒐𝒇𝒍 < 6000 ft (MinRunway length of major commercial
airports) 8
[Courtesy of DAR Corporation]
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

9. SIZING TO LAND
 𝑺 𝑳 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟎𝟒𝟐 𝑽 𝑺
𝟐
≈ 4235 ft
 Depends on the stall speed at landing = 118 kts. approximately
9
*Darcorporation
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

10. SIZING TO CLIMB
 Must reach the altitude of 324000 ft to meet the
Mission Requirement
 Powered Climb must reach minimum of 125000 ft
 (based on X-15 climb rate 1000 fps)
 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒃 =
𝒉 𝒂𝒃𝒔
𝒕 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒃
×
𝟏
𝒍𝒏 𝟏− 𝒉
𝒉 𝒂𝒃𝒔
≈1084 ft/s
Error = 18.8 % [Comparison with performance
data]
10
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

11. GUIDELINES USED FOR FAA CLEARANCE
& SAFETY
11
 FAA-AST (Office of Commercial Space Tourism)
 MIL-F-8785C
 Stability and Controllability Requirements
 MIL-A-8861B
 Structural/Load Requirements
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

12. STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS
12
 MIL-A-8861B
 Maximum Load Limit: 7.50
 V-n diagram from Specifications
 Maneuver Speed: Falls inside V-n diagram
 FAA-AST
 Cabin Pressure: 19.5-23.1 kPa
 Pressure Vessel Safety Factor: 1.5
 Structural Glass Safety Factor: 3.0
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

13. STABILITY REQUIREMENTS
13
 MIL-F-8785C
 Lateral wind for takeoff and landing: 30 knots
 FAA-AST
 Aircraft must be ‘controllable’
• 𝑪 𝒎 𝜶
< 𝟎
• 𝑪 𝒏 𝜷
> 𝟎
• 𝑪𝒍 𝜷
< 𝟎
Can Horizon I meet all of the
Parameters ?
Synthesis - H. Villegas, S. Shakya, R. Beassie

14. MATCHING OF ALL SIZING PARAMETERS
 Does Horizon meet all the
requirement? YES
 Is there a solution space for these kind
of spacecraft to exist ? YES
14
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
ThrusttoWeight(lbs/lbs)
Wing Loading (lbs/ft^2)
Sizing Chart at Take-off with Max.
Lift Co-efficient of 1.4
Take off- Field Length
Landing Distance
Rate of Climb
Horizon
Stella Nova Aeronautics – Conceptual Design – Horizon I
Final Performance :
𝑺 𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 < 𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒐𝒇𝒇
𝑺 𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝟒𝟖𝟎𝟎𝒇𝒕 < 𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝑳𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈
ROC = 1084 ft/s
Error: 18.8%

15. LANDING GEAR -SYSTEM
15
Performance – D. O’Donoghue, J. Faure, S.Shakya

16. LANDING GEAR
 Landing Gear supports the weight of
entire aircraft
 Hence it needs to be sized/designed
properly
 Tri-Cycle and retractable type of landing
Gear was chosen
 More stable due to location of Main Gear
 High Visibility, easier Maneuvering
 Aerodynamically efficient allowing for
faster acceleration
 Main Gear: 85-90 % load
 Nose Gear : 10-15% of load
16
Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure
Courtesy Of aerospace.web

17. LOAD CARRIED BY GEARS
- Raymer’s Method
- 𝑴𝒂𝒙 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏 = 𝟏𝟗𝟏𝟗𝟐 𝒍𝒃
- 𝑴𝒂𝒙 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒔𝒆 = 𝟖𝟒𝟗𝟔 𝒍𝒃
- 𝑴𝒊𝒏 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒔𝒆 = 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟒 𝒍𝒃 ; 𝑫𝒚𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒄 𝑩𝒓𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 =
𝟏𝟖𝟏𝟕𝟒 𝒍𝒃
17
Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure

18. PLACEMENT AND TIRE SIZE
 Ideal Placement in Horizon I
 Main wheel – 46 ft from nose
 Nose wheel – 5ft from nose
 Tire size was mainly decided based on the load it had to carry
 Rapid estimation method by Raymer
 Main Wheel Dimension = 29 x 7.2 in
 Nose Wheel Dimension = 23.2 x 5.76 in
 But taking available tire sizes in market (Michelin), runway
condition and maximum speed during take off and landing
 Main wheel Dimension available = 26 x 8.0 in
 Nose Wheel Dimension available= 24 x 8.0 in
18
Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure
Courtesy Of Faa.gov

19. STRUT SIZE AND LAYOUT
REQUIREMENTS
 Oleo- Pneumatic type of strut
 Length of Strut – 5.9 ft
 Total Length of Main Gear – 7ft
 Satisfies the Layout criteria
 Tip over angle - 𝛼 𝑡𝑖𝑝 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 𝑀𝐿𝐺 −𝐶𝐺
𝐻 𝐶𝐺
= 32.15°
 Maximum rotation (take off) 𝛾 = 90° − 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 60−𝑀𝐿𝐺
𝐻 𝐶𝐺
= 26.7°
19Performance - D. O'Donoghue, S. Shakya, J. Faure
Courtesy Of Faa.gov

20. HORIZON I
THE BEST AND SAFEST OPTION
 Feathering mechanism
 Complex
 Unreliable
 Composites
 New material
 Not fully understood
 Hybrid rocket Engine
 New development
 Complex
20
 Small Aircraft
 Not best passenger
experience
 Geared towards
experiments and
research
 Composites
 New material
 Not fully understood
 Rocket Engine
 New development
 Unproven
 Best commercial space
flight experience
 Safety minded
 Spacious and luxurious
cabin
 Standard Materials
 Years of knowledge and
use
 Safe and reliable
 Rocket Engine
 Proven rocket engine
 Safe and reliable
Stella Nova Aeronautics – Conceptual Design – Horizon I
*VirginGalactic.com *XCOR.com

21. 21
About Stella Nova
Our goal is to provide our
customers with a suborbital space
experience unmatched by
anyone…ever!
Next Gen. Instrumentation
Cost & Performance
Cost:
Performance:
• We would like to thank all the
members of the UTA-MAE
department for their
unwavered support.
• Special thanks to the UTA’s MAE-
AVD group led by
Dr. Bernd Chudoba.
Their guidance has
aided us in the endless
pursuit of perfection!
Fuselage Comfort
Ours:
Theirs:
University of Texas at Arlington
Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Aerospace Vehicle Design
701 S. Neederman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-2561
Safety Minded
• Proven component and material
design exceeding ASTM and NIST
standards
• Certified Compliance to FAA-AST
and Mil-STD-1540D
Special Thanks
Craft Company Ticket Price
Horizon Stella Nova $306,000
Space Ship Two Virgin Galactic $250,000
Rocketplane XP Rocketplane Kistler $250,000
EADS Astrium Airbus Space and Defense $225,000
Lynx II XCOR Aerospace $100,000
Ascender Bristol Spaceplanes $10,000
Boeing 727-200 Boeing $5,000
Cost Per Seat
STELLA NOVA BROCHURE
State of the Art Design
Stella Nova Aeronautics- Conceptual Design – Horizon I