A Sub orbital business class aircraft business proposal.
Kelly Starks
9-7-2008
Figure 1 - Proposed "Blackswift" Aircraft (DARPA).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Introduction/Overview ................................................................................................ 5
1.1
Ancillary space launch market ............................................................................ 7
Market plan/projections .............................................................................................. 9
2.1
Private business class aircraft ........................................................................... 10
2.2
Air taxi / scheduled intercontinental passenger ................................................ 10
2.3
Chartered / scheduled intercontinental cargo .................................................... 11
2.4
Government Sales ............................................................................................. 11
2.5
Orbital tourism .................................................................................................. 11
2.6
Orbital cargo ..................................................................................................... 12
Technology and risk overview .................................................................................. 14
3.1
Aerodynamics and hull form ............................................................................ 15
3.2
Reentry and hull construction. .......................................................................... 20
3.2.1
Modern Composite material based design ................................................ 21
3.3
Propulsion ......................................................................................................... 22
3.3.1
Multi-cycle turbo-ramjet engines .............................................................. 23
3.3.2
Rockets ...................................................................................................... 24
3.4
Fuel and liquid oxygen storage ......................................................................... 25
3.5
Avionics and flight controls .............................................................................. 25
3.6
Life support ....................................................................................................... 26
Support facilities ....................................................................................................... 27
4.1
Service Centers & Line Facilities ..................................................................... 27
4.1.1
Domestic (U.S.A.)..................................................................................... 27
4.1.2
International .............................................................................................. 27
4.2
LOx centers ....................................................................................................... 28
Operational flight modes and projected expenses .................................................... 29
5.1
Normal flight ..................................................................................................... 31
5.2
Suborbital Boost travel ..................................................................................... 31
5.3
Supersonic flight or Hypersonic dash ............................................................... 32
5.4
Orbital launch.................................................................................................... 33
Business plan / budget .............................................................................................. 34
6.1
Year 1 ................................................................................................................ 35
6.2
Year 2 ................................................................................................................ 36
6.3
Year 3 ................................................................................................................ 37
6.4
Year 4 ................................................................................................................ 37
6.5
Year 5 ................................................................................................................ 38
6.6
Year 6 ................................................................................................................ 39
6.7
Year 7 and beyond ............................................................................................ 39
Business / Teaming structure .................................................................................... 40
7.1
Requirements management team ...................................................................... 40
7.2
Marketing and market research ......................................................................... 40
7.3
Under writer and certification interface team ................................................... 40
7.4
Legal officer and legal subcontractors .............................................................. 41
7.5
Propulsion system candidates ........................................................................... 41
7.6
Aerodynamic and craft design .......................................................................... 42
7.6.1
Lockheed/Martins “Skunk works” ............................................................ 42
7.6.2
Boeing, and Boeings “Phantom works”.................................................... 42
7.6.3
Scaled composites (Northrup)................................................................... 43
7.6.4
Other candidates........................................................................................ 43
7.7
Manufacture ...................................................................................................... 43
7.8
Operations Support and facilitation .................................................................. 44
7.9
Space operations support .................................................................................. 44
8. Financing Options ........................................................................................................ 45
8.1.1 High-demand customer investment leverage .................................................. 45
8.1.2 Military interest ............................................................................................... 45
8.2 High performance, Low risk, high market interest ................................................ 45
1 Introduction/Overview
One of the basic truths of business is that time is money. This fact, more than any other,
has led to the development of the current fleet of business class jet aircraft. Although in
many cases these craft are faster than airliners and able to cut travel time due to direct
routings, they are limited by their subsonic speeds and cannot significantly cut flight
times over long-range flights that can approach fifteen hours. A faster class of aircraft,
able to dramatically cut flight times up to twentyfold on long intercontinental class fights,
would be of considerable interest to customers currently buying business class jet aircraft
for 6,000 to 10,000 mile range travel.
To illustrate, consider the following itinerary: A small team in Detroit needs to make
three two-hour meetings around the world in Frankfurt, New Delhi, and Tokyo. With
normal business class aircraft, each leg would take nearly ten hours, a full business day in
the air At best, assuming no more than three hours on the ground for each meeting
(ignoring the time zone issues, or rest factors), the trips would take at least two days in
total. Assuming a more reasonable layover at each city to allow the team to rest, the
itinerary could easily consume a business week.
Multiple companies are currently developing business class supersonic transports, and
studies project a demand for 300-400 of them. Warren Buffett has promised to buy fifty
supersonic business jets as soon as they are available. However, these designs are only
about 1/3 faster than current subsonic craft and can’t dramatically reduce long flight
times.
We are proposing the development of a class of suborbital business class aircraft using
technology that is currently off-the-shelf or in development. This craft will be able to
complete such flights in 20 to 40 minutes, from ascending above controlled airspace to
their re-entry into the controlled airspace of the destination. The aircraft will operate out
of standard airports (although some specialized fixed-base support facilities will be
necessary), in and out of normal air space, follow normal flight rules, be certified under
adapted normal FAA aircraft certification rules, and be piloted by pilots type-rated for
such craft.
Government and private studies have shown that suborbital flights would allow flights
from the Midwestern US to Britain or Japan (about 4000 miles) in 20-25 minutes, and the
US to Sydney (7000 miles) in 40 minutes. Travel times to and from the gate to the edge
of the airports’ controlled airspaces on each end of the flight, would literally exceed the
travel times between the cities. Allowing an hour for each flight, the three-city itinerary
becomes:
City
Detroit
Frankfurt
Tokyo
New Delhi
Detroit
Arrive
Depart Arrive Time Depart Time
Total distance
Distance
Time EST Time EST
Local
Local
flown
12:00am
0
0
1:00 pm
4:00pm
7:00pm
10:00pm
4150
4,150
5:00 pm
8:00pm
7:00am
10:00am
5576
9,726
9:00 pm 12:00pm
7:00am
10:00am
3570
13,296
1:00 pm
7341
20,637
One long, late, 13-hour day, or, similarly, an even later night trip:
City
Detroit
Sydney
Tokyo
New Deli
Detroit
Arrive
Time EST
4:00pm
8:00pm
12:00am
4:00am
Depart
Arrive
Depart Time Distance Total distance
Time EST Time Local
Local
(miles)
flown
3:00pm
0
0
7:00pm
8:00am
11:00pm
9474
9,474
11:00pm 10:00 am
1:00pm
4802
14,276
3:00am
10:00am
1:00pm
3303
17,579
7359
24,938
The trip circumnavigates the globe, and travels from the Arctic from the Arctic to nearly
the Antarctic in thirteen hours.
Suborbital literally means “below stable orbits.” This can mean anything from the
suborbital tourist craft that boosts nearly straight up to the borders of space to
intercontinental ballistic missiles. In our case, the aircraft will boost into an offset orbit
around the earth’s center, forming a shallow arc over the Earth’s atmosphere with
perhaps a couple skips in the atmosphere’s fringes to extend the range, and then descend
back into the Earth’s atmosphere near the destination. Upon re-entry into the
atmosphere, the aircraft will slow down and resume normal flight at extremely high
altitudes, followed by a descent into normal controlled airspace. Air traffic procedures
will need to be negotiated with the FAA and similar international organizations.
Conducting most of the flight outside of the atmosphere dramatically reduces drag and
skin heating on the craft, allowing the flight to use little more energy than a conventional
subsonic flight at dozens of times the speed. The effect is similar to why dolphins cruise
by “porpoising” into the air, arcing out of the high-drag water through low-drag air to
save energy. Though the long-range air travel method has been proposed before, this will
be the first civilian use of the effect.
1.1 Ancillary space launch market
The basic physics of such long suborbital trajectories means there is little performance,
power, or complexity difference, between such a long-range suborbital craft and an
orbital version. So although the current orbital cargo and passenger traffic does not
warrant significant investment in itself, it will be included in the ArcJet’s capacity since it
would not require significant extra costs, and holds the potential to become a significant
ancillary market. ArcJet craft could service this market at roughly 1/1000 of the current
freight costs, since only the margin costs of these extra flights need to be covered in the
freight costs to orbit.
Understanding the almost unavoidable revolution of the secondary market requires
understanding of the cost drivers of that market. Like most aircraft, traditional launch
vehicles require billions of dollars to develop and to field the specialized servicing
infrastructure they will need. That cost has to be absorbed by the total market for the
craft in overhead costs of fleet operations. Aircraft like the ArcJet are sold in the
hundreds to thousands, each flown dozens to hundreds of times each year. So the
overhead costs for the development and support of the fleet, divided over such a big
market, are close to negligible compared to the direct hourly operating costs of the craft.
But the current total space launch market is only a couple dozen flights a year, which is
on average less than one hundred flights in the complete fleet service life of a given
launcher. Dividing the same billions of dollars to field the fleet over such a tiny market
to space adds up to an overhead cost of millions to tens of millions of dollars per flight before the craft itself is even constructed. ArcJet’s vastly larger primary market spreads
the development and support costs over a market tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of times larger. So the cost per flight is vastly less, even factoring in the cost
of possible specialized support infrastructure for launches to orbit with the same craft.
The costs per flight to orbit with an ArcJet is likely to be under 1/1,000 that of current
orbital launch craft, dropping cost to orbit down to a few times that of long-range
intercontinental air freight rather than the current cost of greater than ten thousand times
the cost of intercontinental air freight.
It must be noted that such dramatic cost reductions would inevitably cause a dramatic
expansion in market demand to orbit. All commercial and governmental surveys strongly
suggest this, as do the historic results of cost reductions for all previous transportation
systems. But what the scale of that resulting market could become, what form such a
market could take, and in what timetable it will develop, are almost incalculable. So this
proposal will not extensively cover this expanded market, nor include it in the market
projections.
Another factor that could drive some sales is national or corporate prestige. Nations
without a manned space program or a reputation as innovators in aerospace and
technology can quickly and economically join the club of first world space-faring
nations. This would create valuable PR for developing nations desiring international
respect, national pride, and cultural confidence. Although this growth would not demand
huge fleet purchases of ArcJets or the space launch support facilities, it could generate
sales of a few dozen craft, and more importantly generate international political support
for the air traffic procedural changes needed to support such craft.
2 Market plan/projections
We project the following sales of aircraft at a profit of $40 million each. This estimate is
likely well below market value. Development costs, based on $4-$8 billion bids for
shuttle replacement craft, scaled down for a proportionally smaller craft, are expected to
be $1B. Production costs are estimated at $20 million dollars per unit.
Pessimistic
sales
profits in
million $
Optimistic
aircraft
sales in
units
Optimistic
sales
profits in
million $
100
$4,000
1000
$40,000
70
$2,800
680
$27,200
50
$2,000
300
$12,000
50
$2,000
300
$12,000
1
3
274
$40
$120
$10,960
5
10
2295
$200
$400
$91,800
Pessimistic
aircraft sales
in units
Private business class
aircraft
Air taxi / scheduled
intercontinental
passenger
Chartered / scheduled
intercontinental cargo
Government Sales
Orbital tourist*
Orbital cargo*
Total sales in Millions
of dollars.
* Orbital business could also include fees at launch assist service centers as well as
contracted launches supplied by ArcJet inc. Our current expectation is that the baseline
ArcJet would be capable of flight to orbit as easily as any other long suborbital flight;
however, specialized support facilities may be required if the craft's performance is below
expectations. Alternately, specialized orbital launch support and orbital delivery services
could be marketed to orbital launch customers.
Orbital launch services 20-180 flights per year.
The above sales are rough values, including only the aircraft’s sales income. Secondary
income and expense from support and servicing business are not considered at this time.
Meaningful numbers for this will require actual experience with production craft, in
operation with actual customers, as well as the distribution of this market between
internal and external vendors.
2.1 Private business class aircraft
Essentially, the ArcJets would compete with existing new and used extreme long-range
business class aircraft for private or corporate fleet use. For example, Warren Buffett has
promised to buy fifty supersonic business jets as soon as they are available. This would
seem like a minimum market size for an ArcJet able to provide both short-range super- or
hypersonic travel, or far shorter time intercontinental travel. The National Business
Aircraft Association statistics show that their members operate about 6000 private jets
(half of the over 12,000 business jets worldwide, three-quarters of the worlds business
jets are operated in or around the U.S.). Roughly one third of this world wide fleet is
heavy (over 30,000 lb) long-range aircraft. Projections show that 1000-3000 new long to
extremely long range aircraft will be purchased by 2022. In general, the heavy aircraft
are purchased for long range and comfort during long flights as well as greater passenger
capacity. The ArcJets could be price competitive over such long flights and allow
intercontinental trips in well under an hour, opening a whole new class of hyper rapid,
extreme long distance business travel. The ArcJets will also provide the greater corporate
prestige of arriving in such a unique aircraft. The ArcJets could be purchased to replace a
significant fraction of the current business aircraft fleet, potentially generating total sales
of well over a thousand aircraft.
It seems certain that there is a market for at least a small number of customers who will
purchase ArcJets merely because the craft allows these individuals occasional short
flights into orbit. They might also chose an ArcJet over a competing conventional craft
for that reason.
ArcJet sales 100-1000
2.2 Air taxi / scheduled intercontinental passenger
Every day, hundreds of flights cross back and forth across most major intercontinental
city pairs: New York City to London, Los Angeles to Tokyo, etc. These flights carry tens
of thousands of passengers. If one out of a thousand of these passengers would pay a
couple thousand dollars for a ticket price to cut 12-15 hours off a flight’s duration, it
could represent hundreds of passengers a day across major routes. Only a few ArcJets
would be needed at each major city to carry this many passengers, assuming several
flights per day each, but this would represent 50-600 aircraft.
Given that the Concordes flew hundreds of passengers a day with ticket costs
disproportionately greater than the speed increase, it seems likely that a small suborbital
craft could service similar routes. The ArcJet will be smaller than the Concorde, and can
be operated with more flexibility. The ArcJet’s greater range can also function on long
trans-pacific routes beyond the range of the Concorde
In addition to scheduled service between major airports, there is an opportunity for
charted fights between minor destinations. Offering on-demand VIP travel for persons or
organizations that can not justify the purchase and operation of their own ArcJets is an
additional benefit of the craft’s operational flexibility. The high speed of such craft
allows fewer craft to service a huge area, so a projected market of 20 to 80 craft is
envisioned for this segment of the total.
ArcJet sales 70 to 680?
2.3 Chartered / scheduled intercontinental cargo
Federal Express once proposed a speculative global express service that responded to
supercritical emergency transport demands. If a client requires a new control computer to
restart a factory in Singapore, emergency medical supplies to Jakarta, a replacement
delivery of CPUs to the laptop factory in Sydney, a new drill bit for a diamond mine in
South Africa, the client would call global express to charter a delivery in the next few
hours rather than in a day or two. The tens of thousands of dollars spent for rush delivery
on a ArcJet is inexpensive compared to a day or two of lost work for a factory. Because
of their comparative speed and orbital capabilities, a few ArcJets could service a very
large area.
Obviously, most of the thousands of tons of such freight transported daily would not
transition over to suborbital transports at ten times the cost. But even at a heavy price
premium, one must consider the high demand for overnight express transport in areas
where it is available. The 15-20 hour flight times of conventional air freighters make
overnight service impossible over long trans-Pacific routes. Even if only 1-2% of
traditional scheduled overnight traffic transitions over to ArcJets, it could easily represent
a market for 50 to 300 craft worldwide for air fright services along major routes.
ArcJet sales 50 to 300
2.4 Government Sales
Though the craft is NOT going to be built primarily for government, or built under
government contract rules and procedures, a craft with these capacities would clearly be
useful to the government and military. Given the wide ranging time critical and VIP
transport needs of the US and allied governments, we expect sales to this market to rival
charter sales.
ArcJet sales 50 to 300
2.5 Orbital tourism
The Russians currently sell a tourist flight or two a year on spare seats to the International
Space Station to a handful of extremely rich persons. These individuals pay over $20
million, endure weeks of training, and accept a high personal risk for a few days in orbit.
Therefore, some customers will likely purchase ArcJets instead of a competing
conventional craft merely because they allow them occasional short flights into orbit.
Lockheed/Martin recently signed a contract with Bigelow Aerospace to carry 32
passengers a year to Bigelow space stations currently being deployed. SpaceX has signed
a similar contract with Bigelow Aerospace. Between these two contracts, Bigelow has
reservations for possibly up to 64 commercial astronauts a year. Currently, all manned
space programs only fly 50-60 persons a year. Of these, 40 fly via the NASA Space
Shuttle, which is scheduled to be phased out in 2010 and eventually replaced with a
system perhaps capable of 20 passengers a year. So the Commercial Bigelow contract
alone could represent more then half again of all governmental astronaut flights per year.
At the same time, Virgin Galactic has announced about $4 billion in reservations for
$200,000 /ticket flights up into space for a few minutes of zero G. Our projections for an
ArcJet indicate that we could comfortably and profitably sell flights to orbit for a fourth
to a tenth of that cost. Some of Virgin Galactic’s ticket holders would presumably prefer
a suborbital New York to London flight, and it is reasonable to assume at least 20,000
tickets to sub-orbit would translate to tickets to orbit at a similar cost. So we
conservatively assume an initial orbital passenger market of about 2,000 passengers a
year. This would, however, only mean roughly 300-700 flights a year, requiring only a
few ArcJets worldwide. Even a yearly flight rate of 20,000 passengers would only
require 10s of flights per business day, requiring only a couple of ArcJets worldwide.
We therefore assume a near-term global demand of one to five orbital aircraft and one
launch assist site for global tourist demands for the next 5-10 years. However, we have
lowered passenger cost to orbit by roughly a factor of 1,000 over current orbital tourist
operations, with large safety improvements. Surveys show a large fraction of the
population has expressed very high interest in flying into space; therefore, we show
significant to highly dramatic possible long term growth in this market.
It is also noteworthy that since all the ArcJets are orbital capable, it is likely a given
fraction of the owner operators or charter firms may occasionally want to take a flight to
orbit in their craft. With the latent market of so many ArcJets owners, we expect some
orbital attractions to develop to service this potential market.
Flights per year 300-700+ flights a year
ArcJet sales for orbital operations 1-5
2.6 Orbital cargo
The current total global surface to orbit freight market is a couple hundred tons a year,
most of which is far too bulky or toxic to fly in a craft like the ArcJet. However, this
market has developed in the face of cargo fees of $10,000 - $30,000/pound to orbit.
Given the ArcJet’s cost to orbit is expected to be a thousandth of that, we cannot help but
believe the craft will spawn a vast increase in the launch market. As a starting point, we
project seven to fifteen cargo runs per year to manned commercial space stations like
those currently being deployed by Bigelow Aerospace or the International Space Station.
Similarly, with the demonstrated ability of this craft to deliver a ton (or more) of cargo to
orbit cheaply and on demand, we expect to see significant expansion in commercial cargo
traffic to orbit as small satellites are modified to take advantage of the ArcJet’s capacities
and as orbital commercial research expands.
We feel the above justifies at least one craft optimized for cargo operations to orbit, and
may create at least a handful of sales of ArcJets to the corporate fleets for dual use as
intercontinental and orbital transports.
Flights per year 5-30
ArcJet sales for orbital operations 3-10
3 Technology and risk overview
This section will cover the basic technologies that will be needed for this craft, and
highlight the differences from other commercial aircraft. The section also outlines
technical and cost risks, current market sources for this equipment, or the need to have
custom equipment developed. The goal of the program is to develop a rugged, reliable
design with which to open a new market.
Aerodynamics and hull form
Reentry and hull construction
(Modern Composite material based design)
Propulsion
Multi-cycle turbo-ramjet engines
Rockets
Risk assessment
Low risk
A moderate risk option, but with the
potential to dramatically reduce program
risk and operational cost/complexity.
Little to no risk.
Medium risk
(new rocket engines will need to be developed –
exact durability undetermined.)
Fuel and liquid oxygen storage
Avionics and flight controls
Life support
Low risk
No risk, standard program – possibly
adaptable from off the shelf commercial
equipment.
Low risk, should be off the shelf
equipment.
3.1 Aerodynamics and hull form
Illustrations of the proposed DARPA / Air Force HTV-3X “Blackswift”
aircraft. (Darpa)
Illustrations of the proposed DARPA / Air Force HTV-3X HCV Vision
Vehicle aircraft. (Darpa)
Figure 2 Illustrations of the proposed DARPA / Air Force HCV vision aircraft. (Darpa)
The baseline ArcJet is assumed to be similar in hull form as the HTV-3X “Blackswift”
drone aircraft designs. The BlackSwift designs used existing systems, high temperature
materials, and thermal protection panel designs, all flown successfully on previous test
aircraft. These were integrated with innovative high performance new air intake shapes,
and engines built from exiting fighter jet engine cores integrated with a simple, effective
scramjet exterior. The resulting system was expected to be low risk, and to perform well
at low and high speeds up to a past-Mach 6 flight. Unfortunately this DARPA aircraft
development program was defunded for 2009, but the initial design work on the new
systems and aerodynamics designs has been done. The ArcJet can still build on the
research and design work done for BlackSwift. Since ArcJet expects to use the same
systems (and likely some or all of the same subcontractors) to develop a craft with similar
flight characteristics, we expect a similar hull form, though alternate proposals by the
aerodynamics team are acceptable. The ArcJet would add windows and cabin volume
lacking in the HTV-3X BlackSwift design. Because the exact hull form has little impact
on the other trade off issues of weight, materials, and propulsion systems, the final hull
choice can wait until the design work and detailed trade studies are completed. The
images are shown for illustration purposes.
Stability for this type of craft -- which can be less than for traditional hull shapes -- will
be augmented by modern fly-by-wire flight controls, which have allowed safe operation
of intrinsically unstable aircraft and are now common on commercial aircraft and
airliners. Between this stability augmentation and the craft’s intrinsic aerodynamic
stability over the desired flight range, this design should assure safe operations with
commercial pilots certified for this aircraft type.
3.2 Reentry and hull construction.
Re-entry is one of the primary concerns of most people related to travel into and out of
space. Re-entry is essentially the slowing of the spacecraft using its lower hull and the
upper atmosphere as a braking system to convert its kinetic energy into heat, and
dissipating the heat in to the atmosphere. Functionally and thermodynamically, the reentry system is the same as the brakes in a car.
Frequently, emphasis is placed on the extreme difficulty in designing and building reentry systems to cope with the conditions of return from Earth orbit. However, re-entry
systems have been built with materials ranging from bathtub caulk (the Apollo lunar
return heat shield used a similar chemical compound) to wood (Chinese space capsules
currently use heat shields made out of oak and Bamboo), both of which have proven
completely serviceable for expendable heat shielding systems.
NASA space shuttles have an extremely labor intensive, fragile, and unreliable re-entry
tile system. The Shuttle tile system was used as a cost-saving measure, allowing the use
of lower cost aluminum (which cannot tolerate the temperatures of a home oven or
backyard grill) for the Shuttle’s main airframe. This fragile tile system is now assumed
by many to be required for any such craft, but there is no technical reason requiring it.
Earlier space plane/space shuttle projects developed by NASA and the military used high
temperature alloy skins, insulated from transmitting the heat into temperature-sensitive
inner structures. Newer materials have so much greater temperature resistance as to
invalidate the basic design assumptions of older re-entry designs, allowing sleeker hull
forms. The ArcJet’s flattened shape would dramatically reduce the re-entry skin
temperatures, and new materials would not only allow sleeker shapes, but would focus
the hottest areas to a minimum area of the frontal edges. In combination, this should
lower re-entry hull temperatures, operational complexity and costs, and improve
serviceability and normal flight characteristics.
3.2.1 Modern Composite material based design
Modern high temperature ceramic composite laminate hull panels, such as those already
developed by UltraMet for the Air Force SHARP Thermal Protection System program
and flown on the X-43 scramjet drone, could reduce the dry weight, and potentially reentry temperatures, by perhaps 40% compared to metal hulls and more traditional designs
(see fallback design). By reducing the dry weight this much, the craft’s size and fuel
consumption could be reduced by a similar amount, or cargo capacity expanded several
fold, and program risk due to weight growth issues is dramatically reduced.
Figure 3 Thin structural shell containing aerogel-filled foam core. (UltraMet)
Because the panels are a laminated ceramic matrix composite outer layer, a carbon foam
/Aerogel inner layer under 0.2 inches thick, and a standard carbon fiber composite inner
layer, the panel functions as a standard structural skin and thermal protection system. By
integrating these functions into the laminate panels, the layers reinforce one another,
eliminating most of the servicing and failure issues of complex hull skin systems like the
Shuttle's, and replacing them with a far lighter and stronger system.
This hull surface material is rated for re-entry temperatures several times that expected
for the ArcJet, and has a history of being hard, wear-resistant, chemically inert, and very
resistant to most chemicals; therefore, it is not expected to have any serviceability issues
on the ArcJet. However, this specific panel material hasn’t been used commercially, so
there is a slight risk the panels might have an unexpected maintenance or durability issue.
But the laminate panel construction is common for consumer composite vehicle hulls,
and it is likely to prove a durable hull system.
3.3 Propulsion
Because of the wide variety of speeds and altitudes, the craft will need to carry two
classes of primary propulsion: rockets and a flexible mutlie-cycle turbo-ramjet engine.
Rockets are obviously necessary to boost outside the usable atmosphere and through
space, and a flexible multi-cycle turbo-ramjet engine is needed for atmospheric flight.
Conventional jet engines are optimized for use at specific speed ranges. High bypass
turbofans are most effective at subsonic speeds, turbojets for supersonic flight up to Mach
3, and ramjets for speeds from Mach 3 up to Mach 6 and beyond. Since the ArcJet will
require jet engines to operate from takeoff to over Mach 6, it will need jet engines that
can shift between these modes of operation for various speeds. Rocket engines will then
boost the craft from that speed and altitude out into space and up to its maximum speed.
3.3.1 Multi-cycle turbo-ramjet engines
Figure 4 Multi-cycle turbo-ramjet
The first production multi-cycle turbo-ramjet engines were the Pratt & Whitney J58
engines developed by Pratt & Whitney for the “Blackbird” spy plane family in the Early
’60s, and served reliably for over 30 years until the fleet was retired in 1998. Newer,
higher performance versions are currently being developed to allow fighters better fuel
economy over the full range of their speeds as part of the military’s “RATTLRS”
program (Revolutionary Approach To Time Critical Long Range Strike); and for the
Mach 6 HTV-3X “Blackswift” experimental aircraft. Where the first generation turboramjets used complex ducting to divert airflow around the fighter jet engine core, the
newer engines use clutches to disengage layers of fans unnecessary at the higher speeds.
The clutches and engines systems are already in production for current military aircraft,
so production of the multi-cycle turbo-ramjets should merely require recombination of
off-the-shelf components into the new engine. The manufacturers consider this a lowrisk design, and they are already commissioned to build prototypes of these engines for
military contract.
These multi-cycle jet engines will power the craft from take off to a speed of Mach 6 or 7
at extremely high altitudes. At the limits of the jets’ speed and altitude abilities, the
rockets will reengage and boost the craft into its suborbital trajectory.
The jet engines will not require storage in a pressurized chamber for transit or operations
outside the atmosphere. Similar military jet engines operate in high altitude flight where
air pressure is less than one percent of sea level pressure, so little if any modification is
expected to be necessary for the jet engines to handle exposure to vacuum. Manufacturer
certification of the engines for this flight profile will be required. Although no protection
from the vacuum of space is required, the engines will be shielded from temperature
extremes.
Fuel economy for subsonic flight will be less than that of a craft optimized for subsonic
flight, but the fuel economy will be acceptable considering the speed and range of the
craft.
3.3.2 Rockets
Rocket engines are extremely light, much less complex than normal turbojets, and unique
in being able to function equally well inside and out of the atmosphere. A rocket
engine’s downside is that it consumes over 10 times as much onboard consumables per
pound/second of thrust as a jet engine. Additionally, the bulk of that weight is in liquid
oxygen chilled to hundreds of degrees below zero (-182.96 °C).
Rocket engines have been used for manned aircraft and spaceplanes since the 1940s; but
other than the space shuttles, there has been virtually no demand for reusable rocket
engines since the 1960s. Some rocket engines developed in the 1950s and 1960s were
proven in tests to be capable of flying hundreds of flights with little or no MISSING
WORD!!!, and some of these are still in production. But with virtually all rocket engine
sales going to expendable boosters, there was no serious attempt to improve the service
lives of the production engines.
However, since rocket engines are so simple in operation (fuel and oxygen are injected
into a cooled chamber and burned), there are few components or moving parts to wear
out. Service life limitations are largely due to turbo pump bearing wear and thermal
fatigue on welds and materials. With many current rockets, the bearings designs are
decades out of date compared with more modern industrial turbo pumps and jet aircraft,
and the thermal fatigue problems are largely an issue of weld fracture and other normal
quality issues. Analysis by industry groups reports that the redesign of the rocket engines
to dramatically improve their service life was not considered technically difficult, but
with no projected customer demand, it was unwarranted.
Therefore, the expense of developing a new rocket engine will be worthwhile for our
project, and the demand of a fleet of our aircraft would justify the expense to the
manufacturer. These modifications require no fundamental redesign of the rockets, so
they represent little technical risk. Similarly, using commercial jet fuel as rocket fuel,
rather than rocket-grade kerosene, is not expected to be a significant design issue.
Further, redesigning the rockets to take advantage of reliability, manufacturability, and
serviceability design improvements developed in the last 30-40 years should offer
dramatic quality, reliability, and cost improvements. But with no such program having
been attempted for any large-scale industrial rocket engine project to date, it is extremely
difficult to find any hard service life estimates. We will therefore have to outline a range
for the engines, and assume no service life improvements, and a need to replace the
rocket engines after a designate period of time. Further specifics will need to be
negotiated with the engine manufacturers.
The rockets shall be shrouded in a blast barrier similar to those for turbojet engines to
reduce the probability that an explosive disassembly of the engines will cause any
significant damage to aircraft systems other than the engine itself.
In addition to the primary propulsion rocket engines, the craft will require a series of
small attitude control rockets for flight control in a vacuum. These will be fed from the
primary fuel and oxygen system, but will be multiply redundant for reliability.
3.4 Fuel and liquid oxygen storage
The fuel will be standard commercial jet fuel and liquid oxygen (Lox). Both “fuels” will
be stored onboard in large quantities. Liquid oxygen loading procedures will mirror
standard industrial procedures. One unique benefit is the pressure from the boiling liquid
oxygen can pressurize the tank enough to reinforce the structure of the craft. Therefore, a
properly arranged set of liquid oxygen tanks would not only distribute the weight over the
ship, it would reinforce the primary structure when it is loaded and pressurized.
The main liquid oxygen tank is not highly insulated and hence not capable of storing the
LOx for long periods of time. It may be desirable to add refrigeration gear or smaller
secondary tanks for more prolonged storage for some applications, but currently it is
reasonable to launch soon after filling the LOx tanks.
3.5 Avionics and flight controls
Current avionics technology is more than adequate to handle the navigation and flight
control needs of such craft. However, we will need a customized avionics system for the
craft. This custom avionics system would handle navigation, fly-by-wire control and
automated integration of the various flight control surfaces, attitude control jets, and
various propulsion systems.
3.6 Life support
Since the craft will coast through total vacuum, a traditional pressurized cabin is not
usable. Instead, the cabin will be sealed and recycle its air using standard commercial
systems developed for tourist commercial submarines and diving rigs modified for
aviation use. One advantage of this approach is that since the cabin will be kept at
surface air pressure for the entire flight, the passengers will not need to deal with low air
pressure and dry air effects experienced in traditional aircraft cabins, or pressure changes
during assent or descent.
4 Support facilities
Commercial jet fuel is a standard commodity at virtually any airport in the world, though
some extra filtering during fuel loading may be necessary for the ArcJet’s rocket engines.
Liquid oxygen (LOx), though a standard low-cost industrial and medical commodity, is
rarely stored at airports in the quantities demanded by these craft. This will likely require
the program to set up regional fueling centers equipped with LOx along with servicing
centers, or to negotiate sponsored LOx delivery facilities at various airports. Liquid
oxygen production systems are not very complicated, and produce LOx with a low cost
compared to the fuel the craft would need.
We would need to field cooperative fueling centers with LOx capacities (possibly with
subsidies for company certified LOx facilities), as well as full service centers and Line
Facilities.
4.1 Service Centers & Line Facilities
Specific deals for service centers will need to be determined, but the following locations
seem a desirable minimum given they are current locations of servicing centers for other
long range jets. Given the extremely rapid response offered by these craft, we must offer
within-the-hour emergency delivery of replacement parts to these centers. Any part that
will fit within a ArcJet can be delivered on demand from a central global depot, saving
inventory in remote service centers.
4.1.1 Domestic (U.S.A.)
N.E.
Mid West
California
Texas
Florida
Note the Texas or Florida centers would likely be set up with any specialized services
desirable to support orbital launch operations.
4.1.2 International
United Kingdom
Geneva Switzerland
Australia
Singapore
Sao Paulo SP Brazil
Hong Kong International Airport
Japan
South Africa
4.2 LOx centers
Automated LOX production and storage facilities are available commercially for end user
sites. We will merely need to certify that the centers have purchased good quality
equipment, are trained in safe loading and unloading procedures, and keep a good supply
of LOx available to meet customer demands. Precise locations will need to be
negotiated, but should be offered at or within an hour’s subsonic flight of trip endpoints.
Commercial LOx handling is fairly common, though deliveries on the scale of up to 50
tons per customer, per flight could rapidly become a significant fraction of the worldwide
market, making it an attractive new market for airport fuel providers and LOx equipment
makers. The amount of LOx a site will need to stockpile will need to be calculated based
on the maximum likely number of ArcJet flights they will need to support per day. LOx
storage and the LOx manufacturing production rate can be scaled to match this.
A cooperative arrangement with a LOx facilities manufacturer could benefit the LOx
facilities corporation(s), fixed base operators, and the ArcJet program. Developing an
approved set of turn-key LOx “kits” for installation, with user training and support,
would be a reasonable priority – greatly assisting fueling operators’ transition over to
Fuel and LOx sales.
5 Operational flight modes and projected expenses
This section covers the basic flight modes and projected direct operating costs for the
aircraft. The most similar existing aircraft is the ArcJet is the SR-71, from which we can
extrapolate potential operating costs. The direct operating costs for SR-71 are difficult to
calculate, partly because of the highly classified nature of the craft and its activities,
partly because operating expenses are often bundled with support operations expenses
(such as Tanker support, flight proficiency ops which include the support of specialized
training expenses), and numerous other expenses unrelated to the direct operating costs of
the aircraft. Estimates from the most reputable sources available for the actual direct
costs to fly the airplane itself indicate a rock bottom price in 1996 (the last year they were
in service) of $27,000 per hour, if the annual flying time was above 300 hours total per
fleet.
The DOC (direct operational cost) of the SR-71s was at least 10 times the cost of a large
Gulfstream or other business jet in our projected passenger size range. However, it must
be remembered that this was the cost of maintenance and operation of 30 year old
airframes with a very limited number of spare parts, a worldwide fleet size of 12, a yearly
fleet utilization rate of 300 hours, a complex classified reconnaissance system, and a
highly expensive custom low volatility fuel. Assuming a newer airframe, with modern
systems and a full support base of parts supplies, a significant fleet size to amortize
overhead costs for worldwide support facilities, and a simpler engine system, we estimate
direct operating costs of $4000-$5000 an hour. Given the far higher speed of the ArcJet,
it should be very competitive on a per mile basis with long-range business jets.
Costs for the rocket engines are listed separately since they are more speculative. The
craft will need a set of rocket engines with 100-110 tons of thrust. An RD-180 with 423
tons of thrust costs about $10 million retail from Pratt and Whitney. Scaling the cost
linearly would suggest a cost of about $2-$3 million per engine. Given that we are
projecting hundreds to thousands of craft likely to need a new set of engines every
several hundred to thousand boosts, the engines become a mass produced product costing
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a ship set, rather then millions per ship set.
This leads to a replacement cost per flight of hundreds of dollars per flight. Maintenance
of a well-designed rocket engine is not high because there are a limited number of parts
to maintain. Conservatively, we will base our projections on a $1 million dollar engine
set, lasting 600 flights, and a maintenance cost of 0.1% of replacement cost per fight,
totaling to a additional $1,700 per suborbital or orbital flight. These estimates are kept as
worst-case estimates until firmer numbers are provided by the manufacturer.
Further details of noise and pollution control to keep the craft within airport and airspace
legal requirements will also need to be addressed by the manufacturer, and could impact
the design.
ArcJet
tons
Range
9,300
miles
15000 km
orbit
Range 6000
miles 11100
km
Range
1200
miles
2200 km
Hypersonic Turbojet
dash
Cruise
speed m/s
6700 m/s
6000 m/s
3600 m/s
978.96
293.688
max arc alt
600 miles
960 km
20.337
9,300.00
60.00
600 miles 1000
km
25.123
6,000.00
60.00
400 miles
640 km
51.848
1,200.00
60.00
52.630
3,541.88
100.50
51.410
4,701.90
403.02
2
19.97
2
19.97
2
19.97
2
19.97
2
19.97
3.494
3.494
3.494
3.494
3.494
49.370
35.156
100.000
49.370
33.991
$2,469
98.185
45.446
32.771
$2,272
79.482
34.008
25.506
$1,700
38.512
8.952
9.592
$448
53.959
52.739
33.991
32.771
$6,798
$9,267
$4,500
$1,700
$15,467
N/A
$6,554
$8,827
$4,500
$1,700
$15,027
$2
$5,101
$6,802
$4,500
$1,700
$13,002
$2
$1,918
$2,366
$4,500
$1,700
$8,566
$7
$6,798
$6,798
$7,538
$6,554
$6,554
$30,227
$14,336
$4
$36,781
$8
MAX (ramp weight %) after boost
Range (miles)
flight time (min)
Payload: orbit (6 passengers +2 +cargo) tons
Payload: max (6 passengers +2 +cargo) tons
Loaded weight: W reserve fuel (tons)
30 min (turbofan) fuel reserve (kerosene)
1.5 hour (turbofan) fuel reserve (kerosene)
Lox capacity
Kero capacity
Maximum Take-Off Weight:
Total LOx used
Total Kero used
Lox costs ($0.05 kg - $50 ton)
Kero costs ($0.2 kg - $200 ton)
Total costs of consumables for flight
Direct operating costs $4,500 hour*
Rocket eng servicing cost $1,700 / flight
Total Direct operating costs
Direct costs per mile
16.639
1
2
1.165
3.494
200 miles
16.639
1
16.64
1.165
3.494
* cost per hour assumes active flight hours. On orbit (rather then boosting to orbit), the life support and avionics would operate, but
with the engines shut down, and no aerodynamic loads on the hull, wear and tear on the craft would be similar to it being operated
while parked on the ground, making longer time on orbit for passengers very low cost.
5.1 Normal flight
This mode is comparable to the standard flight mode of traditional business aircraft. The
craft, with a partial load of fuel and little or no LOx (liquid oxygen), flies using its
engines in basic turbojet mode. This will be the standard fight mode for short-range
flight with the craft. The craft will operate normally in and out of airports and normal
controlled airspace at speeds comparable to traditional aircraft.
Direct operating costs in this fight mode will be somewhat higher than that for normal
business class aircraft of similar carrying capacity, due to the ArcJet’s greater size,
weight, and complexity. Total costs are projected at roughly $6000/hour, with a 6+-hour
range, or 4,700 miles at about $8 a mile. Per passenger costs would be $6100 per flight.
Here the assumed high maintenance costs per hours dominate over such a long flight.
But given the craft is in a low stress subsonic cruse, not using its more unconventional
rocket engines, or LOx systems, the actual cost for subsonic cruise could be far lower.
ArcJet
Turbojet
Cruise
Range (miles)
flight time (min)
Total Kero used (tons)
4,701.90
403.02
32.771
Kero costs ($0.2 kg - $200 ton)
Total costs of consumables for flight
Direct operating costs $4,500 hour
Total Direct operating costs
Direct costs per mile
$6,554
$6,554
$30,227
$36,781
$8
5.2 Suborbital Boost travel
Suborbital travel is the standard long-range (intercontinental) flight mode, and is the
primary purpose for this aircraft design.
A typical departure profile would be similar to the following: fully fueled with jet fuel
and LOx (Liquid Oxygen), the jet engines are throttled up to fuel power. The jet engines
accelerate the heavy craft up to 300-400 mph for rotation (take-off) in 4000-6000 feet.
(A few second burst of the rockets could dramatically shorten this take-off distance if
required.) After take-off, the craft ascends and accelerates up to high altitudes. The craft
then begins supersonic flight with the jets in turbojet mode. Above Mach 3, the jet
engines go into ramjet mode, with increasing fuel economy as the craft increases to high
supersonic and finally hypersonic speeds. When the craft reaches altitudes of up to
150,000 feet, and speeds of up to Mach 6-8, the rockets are started and boost the craft
into its final speed and trajectory outside of the atmosphere. 20-30 minutes after take-off,
the craft is coasting through space in a Zero G arc over oceans and continents. Peak
altitude is up to 800 miles. 10-20 minutes of flight time after the boost phase ended, the
ArcJet reenters the atmosphere. Re-entry, even though supported by the autopilot, is
essentially no more difficult than flaring for a landing. The nose is held up about 15 to
30 degrees above the direction of travel, and the craft skims, or skips, along the outer
fringes of the atmosphere, effectively braking the aircraft and reducing its speed and
altitude. After the craft slows to atmospheric speeds and altitudes, the jet engines take it
to a normal airport for landing. Flights are assumed to be at least an hour for service cost
per hour calculations.
Direct operating fuel and LOx costs are $8,500 - $15,000 for intercontinental ranges out
to 8,000-10,000 miles maximum. Assuming servicing costs per flight of $1,700 for the
rocket, total direct operating costs per passenger costs would be $1,430 to $2,500per
flight. A total cost per mile for the longer ranges of about $2 a mile.
Range (miles)
flight time (min)
Lox costs ($0.05 kg - $50 ton)
Kero costs ($0.2 kg - $200 ton)
Total costs of consumables for flight
Direct operating costs $4,500 hour
Rocket eng servicing cost $5,000 / flight
Total Direct operating costs
Direct costs per mile
9,300.00
6,000.00
1,200.00
60.00
$2,272
60.00
$1,700
60.00
$448
$6,554
$8,827
$4,500
$1,700
$15,027
$2
$5,101
$6,802
$4,500
$1,700
$13,002
$2
$1,918
$2,366
$4,500
$1,700
$8,566
$7
5.3 Supersonic flight or Hypersonic dash
Since the jet engines have both turbojet and ramjet mode, they are capable of supersonic
cruise with good fuel economy. Ramjets above Mach 2 or 3 burn only about twice as
much fuel per hour as a subsonic turbojet of similar thrust, but could be covering 3-4
times as much distance per hour. The craft is capable of speeds of over Mach 6 in ramjet
mode, but it is NOT designed to tolerate the sustained high heat loads of sustained
hypersonic flight, which are far higher than re-entry heat loads. However, a brief dash of
20-30 minutes at such speeds (4000-5000 mph) could span 2000-2500 miles before the
craft starts to overheat and needs to drop down to slower speeds to cool down. The
ArcJet could do short dashes with subsonic cruise cool down breaks in between. But this
could still allow high-speed flights to nearby locations too close to require a suborbital
hop.
Ironically, given the ramjets fuel economy peaks at 1800-2400 mph, that is likely the best
endurance cruise speed for the aircraft. This may be the best emergency speed if a rocket
engine failure during boost forces a re-entry short of the destination, and the craft must
“limp” to an airport at merely Mach 3 speeds.
Hypersonic Turbojet
dash
Cruise
Range (miles)
flight time (min)
Total Kero used (tons)
3,541.88
100.50
33.991
4,701.90
403.02
32.771
Kero costs ($0.2 kg - $200 ton)
Total costs of consumables for flight
Direct operating costs $4,500 hour
Total Direct operating costs
Direct costs per mile
$6,798
$6,798
$7,538
$14,336
$4
$6,554
$6,554
$30,227
$36,781
$8
5.4 Orbital launch
As mentioned in the marketing plan, the confirmable near-term market to orbit is too
small to justify extensive investment, but the difference between long suborbital flight,
and orbital flight is surprisingly small. Being capable of such long suborbital flights, the
suborbital craft can reach orbit with a lower cargo loading. While exact orbital loading is
still to be determined, costs for a flight to orbit would be the cost for a max range
suborbital flight. Assuming a load of six passengers and a crewman (1 ton total), that
would come to under $2,600 per passenger to orbit, and under $16,000 a ton ($8 a pound)
to orbit, which is similar to current very long-haul air freight costs. The potential market
growth for transport to orbit with such a cost reduction is incalculable.
orbit
max arc alt
MAX (ramp weight %) after boost
Lox costs ($0.05 kg - $50 ton)
Kero costs ($0.2 kg - $200 ton)
Total costs of consumables for flight
Direct operating costs $4,500 hour
Rocket eng servicing cost $5,000 / flight
Total cost to orbit
.
200 miles
16.639
$2,469
$6,798
$9,267
$4,500
$1,700
$15,567
6 Business plan / budget
Projected development costs are expected to be $1 billion based on $4-$5 billion bids for
shuttle replacement craft, scaled down for a proportionally smaller craft, and the adjusted
historic data for the SR-71s. Boeing experience is that the per-unit cost of making a oneof-a-kind aerospace item (like the SR-71) is 5 times higher than the cost of the 1000th
unit of a production run, and the costs to develop and field a craft is 10 times that of the
early production run unit costs, or 50 times the 1000th unit costs. This leads to a
projected unit production cost of roughly $20 million per craft, in a 1000 unit production
run. Assuming a $60 million dollar sale price, we project $40 million in profit per
aircraft.
Below is rough initial program outline, including projected milestones and budget
projections.
Year
1
Milestones




2





3




Develop preliminary
requirements from market
research
Issue RFP
Downselect to bid teams of
interest (Degree of risk
participation will be a
selection criteria)
Formation of Risk
Assessment Groups.
Contract award(s)
Mock up creation.
Customer survey on mock up.
Preliminary service center
set-up negotiation.
Final selection of, and
preliminary submissions to,
risk assessment group.
Contract negotiation
Preliminary reliability report
from risk assessment group.
Design completion and
acceptance
Selection of Primary service
center and final assembly








Expenses
Income
Balance
(Millions $)
(Millions $)
(Millions $)
$20 (Req. research,
and RFP)
$40 (bid team
proposal
development)
$0
-$60
$200 (phase 1 award) $0
$20 (service center
bid process and
customer feedback
research.)
Risk assessment
group fees?
-$280
$200 (phase 2 award) $0
$10 Market research
$20 (service center
and manufacturing
center selection
costs.)
-$510
4








5




6
7






sites.
Prototype roll out
Testing begins
Mid program reliability
report from risk assessment
group.
Customer survey on
prototype.
Launch assist center
construction award.
Primary service center
construction begin
Final assembly facility set up.
Remote service center
selection bid process begins.
Testing.
Primary and launch assist
service center set up and
testing begins.
Final reliability report from
risk assessment group.
Final assembly testing and
manufacturing training.
Final testing.
FAA certification.
First 30 production craft
Remote center certification
Sales marketing begins
100 aircraft production


$200 (phase 3 award) $0
$100 (facility
construction)
$20 (bid proposal
review)
$10 Marketing and
Market research
-$840


$200 (phase 3 award) $0
$100 testing and
operational expenses
-$1,140


$200 Final award
$100 testing and
operational expenses
$1,200

$100 operational
expenses
$4,000


-$240
(sales)
+$3660
sales
$servicing?
8

100 aircraft production

$100 operational
expenses
$4,000
+$7660
6.1 Year 1
1. Market research
It is assumed that the basic requirements for the craft (intercontinental suborbital,
supersonic and subsonic cruse, and additional fittings for catapult assist to orbit, etc) are
sufficient for inquiries and initial negotiation with potential subcontractors and team
mates. However, a more detailed analysis of the market including range, cargo capacity,
comfort, and other specific customer requirements; as well as more detailed surveys of
market demand, will be undertaken at this time.
Note that propulsion systems and materials options could significantly affect total craft
design and economics, potentially dramatically improving it over baseline numbers.
2. Issue RFP
The basic requirements (intercontinental suborbital, supersonic and subsonic cruise and
additional fittings for catapult assist to orbit, etc) are sufficient for inquiries and initial
negotiation with potential subcontractors and team mates. Technical feedback as well as
teaming and risk-sharing interest shall be solicited, and qualified candidates solicited to
make a bid proposal.
3. Down-select to bid teams of interest
Degree of risk participation will be a selection criteria.
The more interesting candidates will be awarded funding to support their preliminary
design work for bid proposals.
4. Formation of Risk Assessment Groups.
Due to the unique nature of the ArcJet, concerns about its safety are reasonable, and
could inhibit customer sales and increase insurance rates. The project also needs a
neutral party to be able to evaluate the safety and reliability of the bid proposals. To
satisfy both needs, insurance groups will be solicited for recommendations of trusted
evaluation organizations, or interest in forming such a group. This group will be used to
evaluate the bid proposals.
Total expenses for Year 1 are projected as $60 million. $20 million budgeted to support
Requirements development, general research, and RFP solicitation efforts. $40 million
budgeted for bid team proposal development awards.
6.2 Year 2
1. Selection of risk assessment group.
The group will be given technical details of the bids and evaluate them for safety and
reliability projection. Their reports will be used in bid selection, and to reassure insurers
and later customers.
2. Contract award(s)
Final team and design selection is made based on cost, risk sharing, safety and reliability,
and design flexibility.
3. Mock up and customer reaction
With the award, mock-ups of the wining proposal shall be created and displayed at trade
shows to solicit more customer interest and feedback. This step will function both as a
way to refine the design requirements and to prime early marketing efforts.
4. Preliminary service center negotiation.
When fielded, the craft will require servicing and refueling. This will require specialized
tools and LOx production and storage facilities at remote locations, preferably at enough
locations that the ArcJet owners will not be forced to cruise long distances at “slow”
speeds to “fuel” up with LOx for a suborbital boost..
Total expenses for Year 2 are projected as over $220 million: $200 million in phase 1
contract awards and $20 million budgeted to support service center bid process and
customer feedback research, though risk-sharing levels could substantially influence the
amount of capital necessary for contract awards. There is also a possible need for
additional funds to support the risk assessment group.
6.3 Year 3
1. Design completion and acceptance
A complete detailed ArcJet design will be finalized and accepted, with enough detail to
begin construction of a production prototype craft.
2. Contract negotiation
Production contract negotiations for resources and subcontractor deliveries necessary to
implement the submitted design will begin.
3. Preliminary reliability report
The risk assessment group’s report will project detailed assessments of the safety issues,
and total projected failure rates of the production aircraft. Results of their report will be
will be fed back into the accepted finalized design.
4. Selection sites.
At this stage, ArcJet will need to select final assembly and manufacturing sites as well as
locations for primary service centers. These centers include both ArcJet corporate owned
sites, and “certified” commercial support sites. Orbital launch assist sites will also be
selected.
Total expenses for Year 3 are projected as over $230 million: $200 million in phase 2
contract awards, $20 million budgeted to support service center bid process, and $10
million for marketing efforts and market research. There is also a potential need for
additional funds to support the risk assessment group.
6.4 Year 4
1. Prototype roll out
2. Testing begins
3. Mid program reliability report from risk assessment group.
4. Customer survey on prototype.
The overall objective of this phase is to certify the ArcJet as being as safe and reliable as
a conventional high performance business jet aircraft, finding and eliminating any
potential problems, and convincing the insurers and potential customers of its safety and
operability. Initial roll out of the prototype ArcJet also allows the start of verification and
certification testing.
5. Launch assist center construction award.
The orbital launch assist center will be the initial center optimized to support orbital
launches, or to provide to orbit cargo carry. Clients will bring their ArcJets here for
launch assist; the ArcJet program will contract for launch contracts for humans and cargo
to orbit, and the testing operations will need to come here to test the craft’s full
operational capacities.
6. Primary service center construction
The primary service centers are the worldwide facilities for major repair and overhauls of
the aircraft. The primary facilities of concern will be those constructed or funded by the
ArcJet program.
7. Final assembly facility set up.
This phase marks the completion of all construction of the production assembly line for
the ArcJets.
8. Remote service center selection bid process begins.
Remote service centers are those supplying minor repairs for the ArcJets. Their locations
might also reflect LOx suppliers that are submitting grants for initial subsidy awards.
Total expenses for Year 4 are projected as over $330 million: $200 million in phase 3
contract awards, $100 million in faculty construction, $20 million budgeted to support
service center bid process, and $10 million for marketing efforts and research. There is
also a potential need for additional funds to support the risk assessment group.
6.5 Year 5
1. Testing
General testing continues, and expected fault elimination design changes incorporated
into the prototype and production configurations.
2. Service centers and testing
The prototype is flown to at least a representative primary service center to verify it is
outfitted sufficiently to fully service the craft. Any serviceability issues found will be
corrected either in the craft, or through documentation and training.
At this time tests of “launch assist” orbital launches and flights will be conducted.
3. Final reliability report
With the design ready for a full production configuration, and the detailed flight test
results available, the risk assessment group should be able to complete a final report with
a high confidence factor in the reports stated conclusions. This report should allow
insurers to project their fees to insure the craft. Then final operating cost numbers,
including insurance, can be calculated for distribution to likely customers.
4. Final assembly testing and manufacturing training
Final testing of the manufacturing facilities and personnel will commence, and
demonstration test constructions of production prototype craft will be completed.
Total expenses for Year 5 are projected as over $500 million for testing and
implementation in addition to purchases from suppliers and subcontractors.
6.6 Year 6
During Year 6, the testing should be completed and FAA certification awarded. Aircraft
production should be completed, sales of up to 30 units should be made, and remote
servicing centers for initial customer operations should be operational. Contracts for
initial orbital launch services can also be marketed at this time.
$300 million has been budgeted for final awards to subcontractors, testing and other
activities. Sales profits should reach $1.2 billion.
6.7 Year 7 and beyond
Year 7 is the first year of full production and sales of 100 per year. Aside from $100
million in budgeted overhead expenses and the $2 billion/year in production costs,
manufacturers should expect roughly $6 billion in sales. At this point, the ArcJet
program should be seeing a profit of $4 billion.
Additional costs and profits from service center operation, and orbital launch services and
contracts are also expected. Roughly, we estimate that the orbital launch services and
contracts could reach $100 million per year. Potential expansion from 10 to 100 times
that level is arguable, but unprovable at this point. Servicing and LOx sales profits would
depend on the degree of servicing done in company owned-centers, or independent
service centers.
7 Business / Teaming structure
Due to the sophisticated and unconventional nature of the craft, the team will need to
develop a highly skilled and experienced workforce. Since one organization is unlikely
to house all necessary personnel, it may become necessary to subcontract parts of the
craft to aerospace firms with experience. The later could help reassure underwriters,
customers, and investors in the project. Also, the subcontractors could negotiate to invest
via “risk-sharing”.
Given the final teaming arrangement is dependent upon the result of contract negotiations
and interest from potential suppliers, as well as business decisions made by the ArcJet
project group, the following is a list of possible team members. Although these members
are initially the most desirable, this list does not represent a final business structure.
7.1 Requirements management team
While requirements analysis and normal systems engineer functions can be largely or
completely outsourced, the program management would need a lead requirements
analysis and acceptance/approval officer. The management team would need to
supervise and coordinate requirements and related design and verification activities of the
ArcJet. It would also act as a central point of contact with FAA and directed engineering
representative personnel.
7.2 Marketing and market research
Since this innovative craft has no existing models on which to build, extensive research
on exact market preferences in capabilities, configuration, and internal fittings and finish
must be done. The resulting requirements will feed into the requirement database in time
to respond to and implement design and design proposals. Once that is done, the team
will need to do marketing and post-sales customer support
7.3 Under writer and certification interface team
Insurance groups will be solicited for recommendations of trusted evaluation
organizations to satisfy customers of the safety of the craft and to fulfill the need for a
neutral party to evaluate the reliability of the ArcJet. This group will be in charge of
resolving these issues: interfacing with the applicable agencies (national or
international), submitting requirements, evaluating the requirement set for completeness,
and evaluating the bid proposals against their criteria.
FAA certification and operational procedures development are clearly related issues. The
FAA literally has never considered an aircraft like the ArcJet. Inquiries to the FAA-AST
department head reveal that this craft would legally be their responsibility. Though the
ArcJet is utterly unlike what they have considered, I was quickly reassured that the
administration could set up a certification process combining their launcher certification
and normal aircraft certification procedures. Beyond that, the very speed and flight
altitudes will require minor changes to air traffic control operations. Since the ArcJet
enters and leaves FAA controlled airspace not from the ground but from space; a control
center might need to pass control over to another agency, such as Norad, the Air Force
space command, or the destination airspace on the far side of the world. Clearly, this is
new legal and procedural territory, which should be coordinated and resolved as early in
the process as possible.
7.4 Legal officer and legal subcontractors
This project involves a large teaming arrangement of various subcontractors and team
members. In addition to normal legal business requirements, the need for the codevelopment of FAA certification processes, and an understanding of federal and
international legal constraints, will be necessary. At the least, the project will need an inhouse legal officer or staff with the expertise to evaluate legal firms’ bids and supervise
their action.
7.5 Propulsion system candidates
The unique propulsion system is the highest technical risk, and potentially greatest
opportunity in the program. Both the development program of the mass produced multicycle turbo-ramjet and rocket engine, optimize for high flight rate, longer service life
operations, and better maintainability. This is an unheard-of combination because
virtually all rocket engines were developed for use on a single flight then thrown away;
but given even some of these rockets designed for single use, tested out as capable of
hundreds of flights. Since even some of the rockets designed for single use tested out as
capable of hundreds of flights, it’s reasonable to expect rockets specifically developed for
routine use could economically last hundreds to thousands of flights.
For the above reasons the propulsion system must be subcontracted to a major vendor.
Use of a subcontractor with a proven track record with commercial turbine engines would
also help reassure customers and insurers that the rocket systems are safe and durable.
Pratt and Whitney, with its market leadership in turbine, ramjet, and rocket propulsion
systems as well as its cutting-edge work in pulse detonation engines, comes first to mind.
Rolls Royce has similar experience with multi-cycle engines, and is also involved in the
military multi-cycle engine program. GE also has a similar resume.
Other established or “new space” companies should be considered, but their lack of
experience with commercializing their products is a point of concern. For example,
Advanced Projects Research, Incorporated (APRI) of California claims to be a leader in
PDE technology, but was founded in 1989, and has no commercial aircraft experience.
Their expertise, however, could be valuable.
7.6 Aerodynamic and craft design
Hypersonic or other high performance aircraft design, or well-integrated commercial
aircraft design, is a non-trivial exercise generally requiring an experienced organization.
At minimum, designing a craft with stable, easy-to-handle flight characteristics and
integrating all the systems and subsystems into a reasonable and maintainable design
would strongly suggest a major organization with a proven track record. Working with
such an organization will not only lower the design and program technical risks, but
decrease concerns of consumers, insurers, and investors.
Given the importance of good design, team members will initially develop and propose
alternate plans for the ArcJet. These designs could then be evaluated by neutral
organizations. The following list represents well established companies that have
produced craft similar to the ArcJet in the past, and bear consideration as possible team
members in the ArcJet’s development and design.
7.6.1 Lockheed/Martins “Skunk works”
Lockheed/Martins “Skunk works” organization is a obvious choice.
 They have fielded craft like the SR-71s and a vast variety of specialized civilian
and military air and space craft.
 Are currently teamed on a commercial business class SST project.
 They are innovative organization.
 Very well versed in most if not all of the aerodynamic and engineering fields
related to a program like this.
 Recently, they developed specialized hull-shaping techniques that greatly lower
the sonic boom energy. If these techniques could be adapted to the ArcJet, it
could allow supersonic flight over short distances that don’t warrant high-speed
suborbital flight. It might also permit short trips to facilities to refill the LOx
supplies.
Points of concern:
 Their previous high profile difficulties in composite based designs. Given
composites could dramatically reduce the weight and operating costs of the craft,
a team with a strong background in composites is very desirable.
 Lockheed/Martin has comparatively little commercial aircraft experience.
7.6.2 Boeing, and Boeings “Phantom works”
Boeing and Boeings “Phantom works” are less famous; but they have comparable
abilities, and:
 They were early innovators in hypersonic “wave rider” aerodynamics.
 They have far greater success rate with composites.
 They are the world leaders in high performance military and large commercial
aircraft.
 They have extensive spacecraft design and operations experience.

They also have flown prototype airliners with cryogenic fuel systems, which
could give them a edge in integrating practical cryogenic systems into the ArcJet
design.
7.6.3 Scaled composites (Northrup)
Burt Rutan’s Scaled composites are:
 Known to the public for their recent efforts in space tourism.
 Known in the industry as innovators in design and implementation of prototype
composite aircraft, or spacecraft, rapidly and within a budget.
Within this realm they are leaders – but:
 They have little track record in designing or fielding any production aircraft of
any type.
 May have conflict of interest issues given their heavy involvement in space
tourism projects.
 Have limited capital and physical resources to devote to the project.
Though they may not be preferred for the major development of the craft, they may be
extremely valuable as specialized members of a team. Specifically focusing on:
 Design proposals for the craft.
 Design and implementation of a all composite airframe.
 Leveraging their current work fielding space tourism craft given the similar
demands for life support, navigation, rocket <> aircraft systems integration, and
other related subsystems work.
7.6.4 Other candidates
Beyond this short list there are many aerospace firms or research centers foreign or
domestic that could do part or all of such a design. However, the total team would need
expertise in developing practical, durable, safe, maintainable, commercial or military
aircraft. This could involve a new group set up by and for the ArcJet project, with
various degrees of design tasks subcontracted to academic or industrial groups around the
world.
7.7 Manufacture
The ArcJet project could assemble in-house manufacturing, or subcontract all
components and/or final assembly to team members. This choice involves issues of:
 Available expertise, expense, and time to assemble a new manufacturing facility
and staff.
 Potential cost savings from using existing under utilized team member resources.
 Retention of control and future market leverage in the ArcJet project
organization.
 Retention of leverage and authority within the program.
These considerations force any firm decision on this to be deferred until more details on
the options can be determined and negotiations among the team members undertaken.
7.8 Operations Support and facilitation
An aircraft like this requires a global network of repair and support centers. Although
these would not need to be part of the ArcJet team, ArcJet will need to secure, train, and
certify a network of fueling and repair centers. This may involve financial inducement at
least initially, and long term technical support, and certification to assure customers of
their qualifications to service and support the ArcJets. Users will not only need service
and refueling centers, but specialized pilot training and type certification.
Finally, owners and service centers will require 24-hour on-call consulting. In
emergencies, they will need field recovery and repair services, and ArcJet delivery of
spare parts or consultants worldwide. They will also need some assistance in
understanding the most effective way to use these craft for their businesses as well as
supporting owners’ desires to prep their craft for an orbital adventure.
7.9 Space operations support
This group’s task is to offer specialized services to support and facilitate the growth of
the space market, and maximize the ArcJet group's presence in that market as it grows.
Though orbital operations are expected to be a small market at least for some time, they
are a potentially large and specialized market. Potential customers range from an
integration support for a university wanting to launch a research satellite, to transport
services to a commercial or governmental space station, to supporting tourist operations.
There should be significant global demand for governments eager to be counted as space
faring nations. The tremendous cost savings the ArcJets can provide this ancillary market
could well foster its growth into a major market.
8. Financing Options
This section will list a set of possibilities in given scenarios and assumptions. All
scenarios start from the assumption that initial limited work and conversations with
certain key vendors were made to assure reasonable confidence that the performance,
cost, and availability needs of the project can be met. The degree of confidence and
likely performance numbers determined in that phase would drive the following
scenarios.
8.1.1 High-demand customer investment leverage
Even a limited first generation craft would appeal to some customers with a clear strong
need for the craft: companies currently investing hundreds of millions to field limited
suborbital tourist fleets, delivery services with a strong interest in limited fleets of very
time sensitive air freighters, VIP “ultra class” passenger services wanting a few craft for
very time sensitive wealthy clients, and so on. These groups could want the craft badly
enough to either invest in the ArcJet project directly, or sign order contracts that could be
used to raise credit or investment capital to fund the project.
8.1.2 Military interest
Obviously, the military has a vested interest in space launch and the rapid intercontinental
deployment of high value material and personnel. The military is a high demand
customer with a fairly high tolerance of technical risk, and “investors” with infinitely
deep pockets. If they are interested enough, and the political winds and whims align,
they could provide significant capital, investment of their own research and development
resources, or become a high confidence sales source to interested investors.
8.2 High performance, Low risk, high market interest
In the best case scenarios:
 Initial inquiries find the composite hull option is both low risk, and triples cargo
mass fractions of the craft.
 Hull shaping to lower apparent sonic boom, and legislative changes, allow
supersonic flights over the US – especially at high altitudes.
 Propulsion manufacturers see no difficulty in providing high reliability, long life
(thousands of flight cycle capable), low operating cost, integrated propulsion
suites. Cargo mass fractions increase slightly and operating costs drop
significantly due to lower operational costs of the engine.
 Propulsion manufacturers reveal that much more advanced engine combinations
(Pulse Detonation Engines, advanced higher performance, higher speed air
breathing, etc) can be made available for the program, which could double the
cargo mass fractions, and halve the fuel/LOx mass requirements. With lower
cargo loads, the craft could boost straight to orbit from major commercial airports.
That could drive operating costs down to, or even below, that of competing very
long range small aircraft.
At this point, the subcontractors would likely be very willing to self invest in the project.
Additionally, aircraft manufacturers might well be willing to invest in the development of
the ArcJet, and offer manufacturing facilities. If even some of these scenarios comes true;
investor interest is likely to be very high, and market sales projections likewise will be
extremely high.