A systems-level analysis of energy, infrastructure, and economic viability of commercial hypersonic point-to-point (P2P)

Abstract

Introduction:

Commercial hypersonic point-to-point (P2P) travel promises intercontinental flights in under 90 min, yet viability depends on systems-level integration of advanced technologies and infrastructure. This paper addresses the critical question of whether such travel can be technically feasible, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable within the coming decades.

Methods:

We analyze two core technological pillars—Turbine-Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) propulsion and adaptive morphing aerodynamics—integrated within a multidisciplinary framework addressing thermal management. The central contribution is a coupled techno-economic model that quantifies interdependencies between propulsion efficiency, hydrogen costs, infrastructure capital expenditure, lifecycle carbon intensity, and operating costs. Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) is posited as indispensable due to its specific impulse and cooling capacity for air-breathing hypersonic propulsion.

Results:

Three quantitative findings emerge: (1) green hydrogen must reach €2–3 kg⁻¹ by 2035–2040 for levelized cost of travel (LCOT) to fall below €0.60 passenger-km⁻¹; (2) a 100-aircraft fleet requires 1.65 Mt yr⁻¹ LH₂, corresponding to 15–20 GW electrolysis capacity and €10–20B capital expenditure; (3) well-to-wake emissions for green-hydrogen pathways range from 150–350 g CO₂e passenger-km⁻¹, representing a 70%–80% reduction relative to subsonic Jet-A operations.

Discussion:

Commercial viability necessitates realistic deployment beginning 2035–2045, following a staged pathway, with 2030 reframed as aspirational for flight demonstration rather than entry-into-service. The path forward requires concurrent advancement across the entire value chain—presenting a system-of-systems integration challenge with hydrogen at its core. We conclude that while hypersonic P2P travel is technically plausible, its realization hinges on coordinated progress in propulsion, infrastructure, and green hydrogen production, demanding immediate and sustained cross-sector investment.

1 Introduction

The pursuit of ultra-fast global travel through hypersonic point-to-point (P2P) transportation represents a Frontier in aerospace engineering, targeting travel times under 90 min for intercontinental distances (e.g., 10,000+ km) and signaling a paradigm shift in long-distance mobility (Callsen et al., 2023). Boretti (2023) assessed the feasibility of hydrogen-powered hypersonic commercial aircraft for such ultra-fast travel, outlining a significant promise for reduced environmental and economic costs while detailing extensive technical challenges. These challenges include thermal management, materials science for extreme environments (Peters et al., 2024), seamless propulsion across Mach 0–10+ (requiring advanced combined-cycle engines such as TBCC, the development of which involves multidisciplinary integration challenges as summarized in recent reviews (Lin et al., 2024)), and sonic boom mitigation. The study concluded that development is constrained by resources and that success ultimately depends on broader social, political, and economic factors, including synergies with military programs and the wider adoption of hydrogen in aviation. Therefore, a significant wave of experimental and design data from major flight test campaigns and ground facility experiments is required. This data will provide the first high-fidelity validation of integrated vehicle models and critical subsystem performance under real flow conditions. The importance of robust early-stage sizing tools with a focus on multidisciplinary correctness has been emphasized, with studies assessing the adaptability of historic guides like the 1965 USAF Space Planners Guide for modern missions (Coley et al., 2014).

Recent work on liquid hydrogen propulsion has examined performance characteristics across various thermochemical conditions and oxidizers (Yilmaz et al., 2025a), current developments and future directions for hypergolic propellant systems (Yilmaz et al., 2025b), and the challenges and future directions for hydrogen-powered jet engines (Yilmaz et al., 2025). A multi-criteria decision framework for performance evaluation of liquid hydrogen rocket fuel systems with different oxidizers has also been proposed (Yilmaz et al., 2026).

This paper adopts 2030 as an aspirational target for integrated flight demonstration and technology maturation, not commercial service. The staged deployment pathway positions the first niche commercial operations in the 2035–2038 timeframe, with full-scale commercial service by 2045–2055. This framing acknowledges the substantial lead time required for TBCC development, green hydrogen infrastructure build-out, and regulatory certification—all of which are currently at TRL 3–5 and require coordinated public-private investment to reach operational readiness.

This paper offers a distinct contribution positioned at the intersection of aerospace engineering and energy systems analysis. While prior work has examined hydrogen hypersonics primarily from a propulsion or aerothermodynamic perspective (Boretti, 2024; Urzay, 2018; Fry, 2004; Curran, 2001), we explicitly frame the problem as a coupled energy-transport system (IEA, 2022; IRENA, 2020). The central research question is not merely “can we build it?” but rather “under what energy infrastructure scenarios and hydrogen cost trajectories does hypersonic P2P travel become economically viable and environmentally beneficial?” (Fusaro et al., 2020; Mukhopadhaya and Rutherford, 2022). This reframing is essential because the energy density, storage requirements, and production pathways for hydrogen fundamentally constrain aircraft design, operational range, and lifecycle emissions in ways that traditional aerospace analysis has underappreciated (Kossarev, Scholz, and Hornung, 2022).

Figure 1 presents the comprehensive dependency map for achieving commercial hypersonic point-to-point transport. This map serves as the organizing framework for the remainder of the paper. The chart illustrates how the unique properties of Liquid Hydrogen (LH₂) enable three core technological pillars: propulsion via Turbine-Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) engines, adaptive morphing aerodynamics, and an integrated Thermal and Energy Management System (TEMS). These technologies are interdependent and must converge within a Validated High-Fidelity Multidisciplinary Design and Analysis (MDAO) framework. The success of this integrated technical development is a necessary precondition for commercial viability. In the dependency map, the central enabler, liquid hydrogen (LH₂), is positioned at the top to illustrate that it directly enables all three technical pillars. These three pillars are interconnected through bidirectional arrows to emphasize their strong interdependence, meaning progress in one area directly influences the others. The hydrogen supply chain—encompassing production, liquefaction, storage, transport, and airport dispensing—then feeds into the fuel cost parameter, which becomes a key input to the MDAO framework. The MDAO hub serves as the central convergence point where all technologies integrate before reaching the final outcome: commercial hypersonic point-to-point transport. Parallel to this technical convergence, three external constraints—environmental (sonic boom regulation), economic (hydrogen fuel cost and infrastructure), and regulatory (airworthiness certification)—act as parallel prerequisites and are represented by dashed arrows pointing toward the outcome. The chart uses a clear color code: blue for the three technical pillars, yellow for the hydrogen supply chain and economics, green for the MDAO integration hub, red for the external constraints, and purple for the final commercial outcome. Each of these elements is addressed in the following sections.

FIGURE 1

Appendix A proposes the Key Parameters for Techno-Economic Framework, while Appendix B proposes the H₂ET Model—Pseudocode. A Comprehensive List of Abbreviations Used in This Manuscript is then proposed in Appendix C.

1.1 Aims of this review

The primary aim of this study is to develop and apply a coupled Hypersonic Hydrogen Energy-Transport (H₂ET) model that explicitly links aircraft design parameters (specific impulse, lift-to-drag ratio, mass fractions) with hydrogen infrastructure economics (production cost, liquefaction energy, transport logistics, airport storage). This framework enables four concrete objectives: (i) determination of the hydrogen cost and performance thresholds required for commercial viability, (ii) quantification of the infrastructure scale and capital investment needed to support a first-generation fleet, (iii) assessment of the lifecycle environmental performance of hydrogen-powered hypersonic transport relative to alternative modes, and (iv) identification of a staged deployment pathway with policy interventions to accelerate progress. The central thesis is that hypersonic P2P transport must be treated not as an aerospace project with an energy requirement, but as an energy-transport system requiring concurrent investment across aircraft, infrastructure, and regulation.

By connecting these technical, energy systems, and ecosystem-level threads, this work provides a structured dependency map for stakeholders—including aerospace engineers, energy policymakers, infrastructure investors, and aviation regulators—clarifying that the journey to 90-min global travel is a tightly coupled endeavor where success in one domain is intrinsically linked to progress in all others. The paper’s core thesis is that hypersonic P2P transport can be understood as a demand driver for green hydrogen infrastructure, and conversely, the availability of low-cost green hydrogen is the fundamental prerequisite for commercially viable hypersonic aviation. This mutual dependence creates a classic chicken-and-egg problem that requires coordinated policy and investment across sectors.

1.2 Positioning of this work relative to previous studies

This manuscript builds upon, but substantially extends, the author’s prior contributions to hydrogen hypersonic transportation. Boretti (2023) provided a high-level feasibility assessment of hydrogen hypersonic commercial aircraft, focusing on the technological challenges (thermal management, materials, propulsion) and concluding that development is constrained by resources and broader social/political/economic factors. Boretti (2024) focused specifically on hydrogen combined-cycle propulsion, reviewing advancements in TBCC architectures and their applications.

In essence, this manuscript treats hypersonic P2P travel not as an aerospace project with an energy requirement, but as an energy-transport system requiring concurrent investment across aircraft, infrastructure, and regulation. The tables and figures introduced here—particularly the LCOT framework, dependency map, and infrastructure investment estimates—are novel contributions that move beyond the prior feasibility reviews into actionable techno-economic analysis.

2 Materials and methods

This study is a narrative review, synthesizing recent peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, and conference proceedings on hydrogen-powered hypersonic point-to-point transport. The analysis focuses on integrating findings across three core technical domains—propulsion, aerodynamics, and thermal management—and their interdependencies with safety, economic, and regulatory constraints (Boretti, 2023; Boretti, 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2024; Pollock and Wild, 2024). The goal is to construct a coherent dependency map that outlines the critical path and system-level challenges for achieving commercial viability by the 2035–2045 timeframe.

2.1 Novel analytical framework

Input parameter uncertainty is characterized using ranges drawn from published sources (Supplementary Appendix Table A1 in Appendix). Scenario analysis is conducted for 2030 (near-term), 2040 (mid-term), and 2050 (long-term) based on projected hydrogen cost curves, grid carbon intensities, and technology learning rates for electrolyzers (alkaline, PEM, and solid oxide) (IRENA, 2020; Lazard, 2025).

2.2 Methodological note on data extrapolation

This analysis addresses a significant challenge: the absence of empirical data for hypersonic P2P systems in the 2035–2045 timeframe. No commercial hypersonic aircraft exist, TBCC propulsion remains at TRL 4–5 with no integrated flight tests completed, and airport cryogenic hydrogen infrastructure for large-scale operations has not been deployed. Consequently, the author has reinterpreted available data from analogous domains—subsonic/supersonic aviation, military hypersonic programs, industrial hydrogen logistics, and energy system roadmaps—to produce estimates appropriate for this emerging application.

Key parameters (Isp, L/D, maintenance costs, infrastructure CAPEX) were synthesized from peer-reviewed literature (Fusaro et al., 2018; 2020; Maynard et al., 2025; Mauriello et al., 2024a), energy agency reports (IRENA, 2020; IEA, 2022), and industry roadmaps (BNEF, 2023; Lazard, 2025), then scaled using established aerospace CERs and technology learning curves. The Hypersonic Hydrogen Energy-Transport (H₂ET) model couples aircraft performance, hydrogen supply chain, economic, and lifecycle modules, with parameter ranges (Supplementary Appendix Table A1) reflecting 10th-90th percentile uncertainty. All baseline values are conservative, and the staged deployment pathway acknowledges the inherent uncertainty in early-stage technology assessment. For parameters marked as “author’s estimate” in Supplementary Appendix Table A1, concrete scaling sources are provided: Kennedy Space Center boil-off data (0.1%–0.5%/day), industrial leakage rates (1%–5% from H₂ infrastructure studies), Linde/Air Liquide/Chart Industries catalogues for cryogenic equipment costs, and Heathrow and Rotterdam feasibility studies for airport infrastructure estimates. These estimates serve as scoping values for strategic planning and policy development, requiring refinement as flight test data and infrastructure projects advance.

3 Results

3.1 Current status of hydrogen aviation programs: lessons from ongoing initiatives

These lessons inform the staged deployment pathway and the extended timeline adopted in this paper.

3.2 The hydrogen energy imperative for hypersonic propulsion

For the energy systems audience, we begin by establishing why hydrogen—not methane, ammonia, or synthetic kerosene—is the only viable fuel for hypersonic air-breathing propulsion (Boretti, 2024; Urzay, 2018). Table 1 extends the traditional specific impulse comparison to include energy density metrics critical for energy infrastructure planning.

While ammonia presents significant combustion challenges in scramjets due to low flame speed and high ignition temperature, active research is ongoing (Yilmaz et al., 2025a; Yilmaz et al., 2025b). Scramjet uses are under active research; significant challenges remain: low flame speed, high ignition temperature, NOx.

The critical insight from Table 1 is the trade-off between gravimetric and volumetric energy density. Hydrogen’s superior gravimetric density (120–142 MJ/kg vs. 43–44 MJ/kg for Jet-A) explains its Isp advantage (Boretti, 2023; Fry, 2004; Curran, 2001), but its poor volumetric density (8.5–10.1 MJ/L for LH₂ vs. 34–36 MJ/L for Jet-A) drives massive tankage volume—approximately 4× larger for equivalent energy content. For energy infrastructure planning, this implies: (a) airports require 4× greater cryogenic storage volume per unit of energy delivered, (b) transport logistics (pipelines, tankers) must move larger volumes for the same energy throughput, and (c) liquefaction energy (10–15 kWh/kg LH₂) represents a 30%–40% energy penalty that must be accounted in well-to-wake efficiency calculations (IEA, 2022).

The specific impulse equations introduced in the original manuscript can be reinterpreted in energy systems terms. The required hydrogen fuel mass for a mission of range R is:where m_dry is the dry mass (aircraft structure + payload). This equation reveals the direct coupling between fuel efficiency (Isp, L/D) and hydrogen mass demand (Van Wie et al., 2005; Bertin and Cummings, 2003). For a transpacific mission (R = 10,000 km) with L/D = 6 and Isp = 3000 s, m_H2/m_dry ≈ 0.55—meaning hydrogen fuel mass is approximately 55% of the dry structural mass. The low volumetric density then dictates tank volume V_tank = m_H2/ρ_H2, where ρ_H2 (liquid) ≈ 71 kg/m³. For a 100-tonne dry mass aircraft, m_H2 ≈ 55 tons requiring V_tank ≈ 775 m³—approximately the volume of two Boeing 747 fuselages. This volumetric penalty cascades into increased drag, structural mass, and infrastructure requirements, quantified in subsequent sections.

3.3 TBCC propulsion: energy efficiency and mode transition

Primary vehicle architectures being explored include rocket-powered boost-glide vehicles, such as the SpaceLiner (Sippel, 2009), airbreathing hypersonic cruisers, and smaller hypersonic concepts (D’Oriano et al., 2018), as well as hybrid propulsion types (Maynard et al., 2025). The comparative assessment of TBCC versus alternative architectures (rocket-based, turboramjet, pure scramjet) has been expanded. Rocket-based systems require 4–5× more fuel mass for the same mission due to the absence of air-breathing efficiency; turboramjets are limited to Mach 4–5 and cannot sustain hypersonic cruise; pure scramjets cannot provide takeoff thrust. TBCC thus offers the best compromise for commercial P2P due to its ability to operate from takeoff to Mach 8+ while maintaining air-breathing efficiency. From an energy systems perspective, the choice of propulsion architecture determines not only vehicle performance but also the hydrogen consumption rate (kg/km), the required fueling infrastructure capacity (tons/day per airport), and the well-to-wake energy efficiency (Boretti, 2024).

The most realistic for sustained civil P2P flight is turbine-based combined cycle propulsion (TBCC, Boretti, 2024), which integrates multiple engine types—turbojets, ramjets, and scramjets—into a single system to operate from takeoff to hypersonic speeds. The energy significance of TBCC is that it enables air-breathing operation across the entire flight envelope, avoiding the extreme hydrogen consumption of rocket-based alternatives (which would require 4–5× more fuel mass for the same mission). A recent comprehensive review highlights TBCC as the most promising power system for near-space hypersonic aircraft due to its wide flight envelope, reusability, and high thrust, while also detailing global research programs and critical technological hurdles such as inlet design, exhaust system integration, and mode transition control (Lin et al., 2024). Detailed aerodynamic studies on airframe-engine integration for supersonic and hypersonic vehicles have further emphasized the importance of mixed-compression intakes and overall integration challenges (Gaglio et al., 2021; Gaglio et al., 2023).

The critical energy challenge for TBCC is the “mode transition” from turbine-based to ramjet/scramjet operation, typically between Mach 3 and Mach 5. During this phase, the engine operates at low efficiency (Isp drops to 800–1200 s) because neither mode is optimal. This “Isp valley” increases total mission hydrogen consumption by 15%–25% compared to a hypothetical ideal engine, directly impacting the hydrogen supply chain: more fuel mass means larger cryogenic storage at airports, higher liquefaction energy, and increased transport costs (Fusaro et al., 2019; Fusaro et al., 2020).

From a hydrogen energy infrastructure standpoint, the TBCC imposes specific fuel quality requirements. The ramjet/scramjet combustor requires hydrogen at precise temperature (100–300 K after regenerative heating) and pressure (20–50 bar) to achieve stable supersonic combustion without unstart. This couples the aircraft’s thermal management system with the ground-based hydrogen supply: the delivered hydrogen at the airport hydrant must meet purity (>99.97% H₂), pressure, and temperature specifications, or the aircraft must expend additional energy on onboard conditioning (pumps, heat exchangers).

Figure 2 is a concept of a hypersonic aircraft shaped with sharply swept wings, a streamlined fuselage, and canards, and combined cycle air breathing propulsion. The conceptual illustration is intended to convey the general arrangement of a hypersonic transport—including sharply swept wings, streamlined fuselage, and combined-cycle propulsion—but is not a validated aerodynamic design. Achieving the required pressure recovery at Mach numbers above 3, nozzle expansion ratio at high altitude, and integrated forebody compression for mode transition would require substantially more refined inlet and exhaust geometries than shown. The center aft area on the lower side is intended to suggest a SERN-type nozzle for ramjet/scramjet operation, but its specific geometry and integration with the airframe remain subjects of ongoing research (Gaglio et al., 2023; Gaglio et al., 2021). Advances are required in two key areas of this field. First, successful ground demonstrations of “mode transition,” the critical handover from a turbine-based cycle to a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet, sustaining combustion without unstart across a representative Mach 3–5 flight envelope. This remains a paramount challenge, with recent analyses emphasizing the need to integrate strongly coupled flight control with mode transition control technology for TBCC systems (Lin et al., 2024). Second, from an energy perspective, progress in additive manufacturing for high-temperature, actively cooled components is essential to reduce the cooling hydrogen penalty and improve overall thermodynamic efficiency. Figure 3 presents a functional system architecture of the hypersonic point-to-point transport concept.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

For the energy systems community, the key takeaway from TBCC development is that propulsion efficiency gains directly translate into reduced hydrogen demand, lowering the required scale (and thus capital cost) of electrolysis, liquefaction, and airport storage infrastructure. Using the reference vehicle defined in Table 2 (100 pax, 55 tons LH₂ per mission, 300 missions/year, 1.65 million tons/year fleet consumption), a 10% improvement in mission-averaged Isp from the baseline of 2,800 s to 3,080 s reduces fuel consumption per mission to 55 tons and annual fleet consumption to 1.5 million tons, a reduction of 150,000 tons/year (slightly lower than the 180,000 tons estimated earlier due to the cooling penalty included in the baseline). At €3–5/kg, this saves €0.45–0.75 billion/year. However, achieving such an improvement beyond a cutting-edge baseline TBCC design is unlikely in early-generation aircraft; a 10% Isp gain would require either significantly higher turbine inlet temperatures, reduced mode-transition losses, or advanced cycle innovations (e.g., variable geometry with active cooling) that are likely a decade or more beyond first flight. The calculation is thus intended as a sensitivity analysis and upper-bound estimate of potential savings, not a near-term expectation. Baseline performance characteristics are detailed in Table 3, and input parameter ranges for sensitivity analysis are provided in Supplementary Appendix Table A1.

3.3.1 Mass balance and mission profile for reference concept

To provide a quantitative basis for the hydrogen consumption and infrastructure estimates presented throughout this paper, Table 2 defines a reference 100-passenger hypersonic transport concept. This reference vehicle is used for all subsequent calculations of fuel consumption, infrastructure scale, and economic metrics. It is emphasized that this is a notional concept intended for scoping analysis, not a finalized design.

For a fleet of 100 such aircraft, each operating one transpacific mission per day (300 flights/year per aircraft), annual LH₂ consumption = 100 × 55 tons × 300 = 1.65 million tons/year. This provides the basis for the electrolyzer and liquefaction capacity estimates. The infrastructure investment figures (€10–20B for electrolysis, €0.9–1.8B for liquefaction, €0.3–3.5B for airports) are derived directly from this reference fleet consumption.

3.3.2 TBCC baseline architecture and mission performance

The reference TBCC architecture consists of three integrated flow paths sharing a common inlet and nozzle (Lin et al., 2024): (1) a turbojet core for operation from takeoff to Mach 2.5–3.0, (2) a ramjet for operation from Mach 2.5–5.0, and (3) a scramjet for operation from Mach 5.0–8.0+. The transition from turbojet to ramjet occurs at approximately Mach 2.8, and from ramjet to scramjet at approximately Mach 5.0.

The propulsion system mass is estimated at 15 tons (7.5% of TOGW), consistent with scaling from Fusaro et al. (2020) and Maynard et al. (2025) for TBCC-class vehicles. This mass includes inlets, compressors, combustors, turbines, nozzles, and variable geometry actuation systems. The specific impulse values in Table 3 reflect current research targets (Boretti, 2024; Urzay, 2018), with the Isp valley during mode transitions representing a major performance penalty that increases mission fuel consumption by 15%–25% compared to an ideal engine.

3.4 TEMS: hydrogen as an integrated heat sink

From an energy systems perspective, the integrated TEMS is not merely a subsystem—it is the critical interface between the aircraft’s propulsion demand and the hydrogen fuel supply (Fusaro et al., 2019). The unique thermodynamic properties of hydrogen (lowest boiling point of any element, 20.3 K; specific heat capacity of 14.3 kJ/kg·K in liquid phase; heat of vaporization of 446 kJ/kg; and heat capacity of ∼14.8 kJ/kg·K as gas up to 1000 K) make it a uniquely capable heat sink for hypersonic thermal management. While water has a higher heat of vaporization (2,257 kJ/kg), hydrogen’s advantage lies in its cryogenic temperature (20.3 K vs. 373 K for water), providing a large sensible heat absorption capacity over a wide temperature range, its favorable transport properties (low viscosity, high thermal conductivity), and the fact that it can be burned after serving as a coolant—unlike water, which adds mass without contributing to propulsion. This combination of sensible cooling, latent cooling, and fuel utility makes hydrogen unmatched for regenerative cooling in hypersonic air-breathing engines. However, using hydrogen as a coolant creates a direct thermodynamic trade-off: hydrogen that absorbs heat for thermal protection is unavailable for propulsion unless the absorbed heat is recovered as useful work.

Managing extreme aerothermodynamic heating is paramount. The peak heat flux is governed by:

(Anderson, 2009; Bertin and Cummings, 2006). This necessitates revolutionary thermal protection systems (TPS). The development of next-generation TPS is a central pillar of modern hypersonic materials design, requiring new refractory materials and composites for leading edges and vehicle skins (Peters et al., 2024). From an energy lifecycle perspective, the embodied energy of these advanced materials (refractory alloys, ceramic matrix composites) can be 10–50× higher than conventional aerospace aluminum, a factor rarely included in well-to-wake emissions calculations but relevant for full lifecycle assessment (Kossarev, Scholz, and Hornung, 2022).

A critical strategy involves using the cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH₂) fuel as a heat sink in an integrated TEMS (Fusaro et al., 2019). The required hydrogen flow rate for cooling can be estimated from:where Q is the total heat load, c_p is the specific heat, ΔT is the temperature rise, and h_fg is the latent heat of vaporization (Fusaro et al., 2019). For a representative hypersonic cruise at Mach 8 (altitude 35 km), the stagnation-point gas temperature is approximately 4,000–4,500 °C (computed from isentropic relations for a freestream temperature of ∼235 K). The wall temperature in radiation equilibrium is substantially lower, typically 2,000–2,500 °C depending on surface emissivity and catalyticity (Bertin and Cummings, 2006). The total heat load Q to be managed by the thermal protection system is approximately 50–100 MW depending on vehicle size and the effectiveness of boundary-layer cooling. This distinction is critical: the gas temperature dictates the heat flux driving the cooling requirement, while the wall temperature governs material selection and TPS design (Peters et al., 2024). For a representative hypersonic cruise, the required cooling hydrogen flow rate is ṁ_cooling = 0.5–2.0 kg/s. For a 90-min mission, the cooling-only hydrogen requirement is 2,700–10,800 kg. When added to propulsion hydrogen, total mission demand increases by 10%–30%. This “cooling penalty” must be included in any hydrogen infrastructure sizing exercise; ignoring it would under-design liquefaction capacity by 10%–30%.

The areas requiring active H₂ cooling include: (1) leading edges (wing, inlet cowl, nose) where peak heat fluxes occur; (2) the combustor walls and nozzle throat of the scramjet/ramjet, where combustion temperatures exceed 2,500 °C; (3) the turbine blades and vanes of the turbojet core; and (4) high-temperature ducting and struts in the inlet and nozzle. The cooling H₂ is passed through these hot sections via microchannel heat exchangers or regenerative cooling channels embedded in the structure (Fusaro et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2025).

The H₂ used for cooling cannot always be burned in the combustor due to several constraints. First, the cooling circuit may be at a lower pressure than the combustor at certain flight points, preventing injection. Second, if the cooling H₂ has been heated to a temperature that is thermodynamically mismatched with the combustor inlet conditions (e.g., too hot for the turbojet compressor or too cold for scramjet ignition), direct injection may disrupt combustion stability or reduce overall efficiency. Third, during certain trajectory phases (e.g., the Isp valley during mode transition, or low-power descent), the combustor may not accept additional fuel without exceeding structural temperature limits or causing unstart. This creates a potential mismatch: the vehicle may require more cooling during transonic or mode-transition phases than the engine can usefully burn, resulting in overboard venting or flare combustion—a loss of fuel that increases H₂ demand.

The alternative of using water as a dedicated coolant is worth considering. Water’s higher heat of vaporization (2,257 kJ/kg vs. 446 kJ/kg for H₂) means that significantly less water mass is required for latent cooling for a given heat load. However, water cooling introduces several disadvantages: (1) water adds mass that is not a fuel, increasing vehicle weight and reducing payload; (2) water must be stored in separate tanks, increasing volume; (3) water has higher freezing point and lower thermal stability at very high temperatures; (4) water cannot be regeneratively burned, so any water used for cooling represents a pure mass penalty with no propulsion benefit; and (5) water systems add plumbing complexity and the risk of phase-change-induced pressure surges. Thus, while water is thermodynamically efficient as a coolant, the overall system-level trade—considering mass, volume, and mission fuel efficiency—typically favors H₂ regenerative cooling for hypersonic air-breathing vehicles (Fusaro et al., 2019; Van Wie et al., 2005).

The design must carefully trade the hydrogen used for cooling against that reserved for propulsion, directly impacting mission-averaged specific impulse. This trade-off makes reliability analysis under combined thermal and mechanical loads critical for designing fail-safe structures and certifying vehicle airworthiness (Yu et al., 2025). Material science innovations are also yielding radical new approaches. Recent experimental research has demonstrated the potential of advanced material structures, such as blunt-sharp structured thermal armor (STA) designed to inhibit the Leidenfrost effect, to enable highly efficient direct liquid cooling. This approach has withstood simulated heating exceeding 3000 °C, offering a promising alternative or complement to traditional regenerative cooling schemes for managing localized extreme heat fluxes (Wang et al., 2025).

A novel energy systems concept emerging from recent research is the hydrogen regenerative cycle, where absorbed heat is used to drive turbopumps or expanders, recovering some of the cooling penalty as useful work. The thermodynamic efficiency of this cycle is:where h and s are specific enthalpy and entropy. Preliminary studies suggest regenerative efficiencies of 15%–25% are achievable, reducing the net cooling penalty to 8%–25% of baseline (Fusaro et al., 2019). For the hydrogen supply chain, regenerative cooling reduces the fuel mass penalty, lowering required LH₂ throughput at airports by 5%–15% for a given mission.

For energy infrastructure planning, the TEMS creates a coupling between aerodynamic heating (a function of vehicle design and flight trajectory) and hydrogen consumption that must be modeled dynamically. Airports serving hypersonic fleets cannot simply size hydrogen storage based on propulsion demand alone; they must include the cooling penalty, which varies with ambient temperature, flight duration, and vehicle configuration. Peak cooling demand (e.g., during maximum dynamic pressure ascent) determines instantaneous hydrogen flow rate requirements at the dispensing point, which may exceed propulsion flow rates by 30%–50%.

3.5 Adaptive aerodynamics: energy efficiency through morphing surfaces

Assuming the TBCC propulsion challenge is addressed, the next challenge is the use of adaptive morphing surfaces for hypersonic P2P aircraft (Dai et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). From an energy systems perspective, adaptive aerodynamics is a mechanism to improve the vehicle’s lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) across the flight envelope, directly reducing hydrogen fuel consumption per passenger-kilometer. Since hydrogen cost dominates DOC (70%–90%), any improvement in L/D translates almost dollar-for-dollar into reduced operating cost and lower infrastructure demand.

These aircraft must fly efficiently across completely different flight stages—from subsonic takeoff and landing, through transonic acceleration, up to sustained hypersonic cruise above Mach 5. Each phase needs a different aircraft shape for optimal performance. A fixed design forces engineers to choose a middle-ground shape that is not ideal for any single phase. Adaptive morphing surfaces solve this by allowing the aircraft to change shape during flight, optimizing for each regime (Bao et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2023).

The aerodynamic efficiency is fundamentally governed by the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D):

At subsonic speeds, high lift coefficient (C_L) is required, favoring thick wings with low sweep. At hypersonic speeds, minimizing the drag coefficient (C_D) is critical, which demands sharp leading edges and highly swept delta wings. A morphing vehicle achieving L/D = 6 at cruise (vs. L/D = 4 for a fixed compromise design) could reduce hydrogen fuel mass for a given mission, assuming constant Isp and structural mass. However, several important caveats apply. First, L/D = 4 at hypersonic cruise (Mach 6–10) is already near the practical limit for trimmed, volume-constrained hypersonic vehicles without active flow control or advanced waverider shaping (Bertin and Cummings, 2006; Van Wie et al., 2005). Achieving L/D = 6 would require a highly optimized waverider configuration with forebody compression and aft body expansion carefully integrated—a design approach that may not be compatible with the volumetric packaging required for hydrogen tankage and passenger accommodation. The conceptual illustration in Figure 2 is unlikely to achieve L/D > 3.5 based on its conventional delta-wing layout. Second, any increase in L/D through morphing surfaces comes at the cost of additional structural mass (actuators, hinges, smart materials) and may degrade aerodynamic efficiency during non-cruise phases. Third, L/D improvement is not neutral to Isp: the morphing mechanisms may require hydraulic or electrical power that could reduce net propulsive efficiency, and the changes in vehicle shape affect inlet performance and nozzle expansion ratio. A more realistic estimate of the fuel reduction from L/D improvement is therefore 10%–15%, not the theoretical 33%, once these second-order effects are included. The sensitivity analysis in Supplementary Appendix Table A1 brackets L/D from three to seven to reflect this uncertainty.

The engine air intake and exhaust must change shape dramatically. At low speeds, the inlet opens wide to feed enough air to the turbojet. As speed increases into the ramjet and scramjet range, the inlet must narrow and adjust internal ramps to manage shockwaves and compress air efficiently without causing the engine to unstart. This uses translating ramps and moveable panels (Gaglio et al., 2023; Gaglio et al., 2021). The exhaust nozzle must change from a smaller opening for turbojet thrust to a large, expanded shape for efficient scramjet operation at high altitude. This is done with adjustable flaps and extensible sections.

The wing itself must transform. For low speed, wings need high lift, so they benefit from a longer span and large flaps. For hypersonic cruise, wings need low drag, so they should be short, highly swept, or delta-shaped. Technologies to achieve this include telescoping or folding wing sections to change the wingspan, mechanisms that change the wing sweep angle in flight, and actuators inside the wing that twist or change its curvature for optimal performance (Dai et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020).

The hypersonic environment is too hot and stressful for normal aircraft materials and motors. Key challenges are extreme heat, high forces, and the need to be very light. This necessitates a fundamental advancement in materials science, focusing on the design of resilient refractory alloys, composites, and ceramics capable of withstanding extreme aerothermal loads (Peters et al., 2024). From an energy lifecycle perspective, the high embodied energy of these advanced materials (e.g., carbon-carbon composites require 200–500 MJ/kg to produce vs. 150 MJ/kg for aluminum) increases the vehicle’s manufacturing carbon footprint. However, this “upfront” emission is amortized over the vehicle’s 15–20-year life and remains small (<5%) compared to operational emissions for hydrogen produced from fossil sources (Kossarev, Scholz, and Hornung, 2022).

A critical, interconnected discipline governing this interaction is aerothermoelasticity, which studies the fluid-thermal-structural coupling where aerodynamic heating, structural deformation, and aerodynamic forces continuously influence each other. Managing this coupling is vital to prevent dangerous flutter, control reversal, or structural failure in morphing hypersonic vehicles (Wan et al., 2025). Integrated design is essential. Morphing parts must be built as “smart structures” from the start, combining structure, thermal protection, movement, and sensors into one lightweight unit (Shao et al., 2026; Yang et al., 2026; Zhang B et al., 2025, Zhang H et al., 2025, Zhang C et al., 2025; Zhang and Fu, 2026).

Table 4 summarizes morphing technologies for hypersonic P2P aircraft.

Recent advances in control algorithms demonstrate the potential for morphing-aerodynamic collaborative control to enhance hypersonic vehicle performance (Wang et al., 2026). Concurrently, trajectory optimization techniques have also been developed for morphing vehicles, with research focusing on bilevel alternating direction iteration methods to solve the complex optimization problem (Xu et al., 2025). Addressing system uncertainties is critical, with research focusing on robust adaptive dynamic programming for vehicles under unmatched disturbances (Guo et al., 2026). Furthermore, fault-tolerant control methods combining knowledge and data-driven approaches are essential for reliability (Liu et al., 2026). Extending this to fleet-level operations, a distributed integrated design approach for hypersonic flight vehicle swarms has also been proposed to optimize both performance and safety simultaneously (Yao et al., 2025).

For the energy systems community, the key takeaway from adaptive aerodynamics is that morphing surfaces are not merely an aerodynamic refinement but a core energy efficiency technology. The 33% fuel reduction achievable through L/D optimization from L/D = 4 to L/D = 6 translates directly into a 33% reduction in required hydrogen production capacity, liquefaction energy, storage volume, and transport logistics. This makes morphing surfaces one of the highest-leverage investments for reducing the infrastructure burden of hypersonic P2P travel.

Monte Carlo analysis of green hydrogen costs yields a 10th–90th percentile range of €2.8–5.2/kg for 2030 and €1.8–3.4/kg for 2040, with median values of €4.0/kg and €2.5/kg respectively. The probability of achieving €3/kg or lower by 2035 is estimated at 35%, rising to 80% by 2045, based on electrolyzer learning rates of 12%–15% and renewable electricity cost declines of 5%–8% per year.

3.6 Green hydrogen infrastructure: the binding constraint

The most binding constraint on commercial hypersonic P2P travel may lie on the ground. This section presents an integrated analysis of hydrogen infrastructure requirements specific to hypersonic aviation, including production, liquefaction, storage, transport, and airport dispensing. Kountouris et al. (2024) present a unified European hydrogen infrastructure planning framework to support rapid scale-up of hydrogen production. Hugo et al. (2005) describe hydrogen infrastructure strategic planning using multi-objective optimization. Gan et al. (2021) address multi-network coordinated hydrogen supply infrastructure planning for integration of hydrogen vehicles and renewable energy. Efthymiadou et al. (2025) present an optimization approach for hydrogen infrastructure planning under uncertainty.

3.6.1 Production pathways and scale

Table 5 presents a comparative assessment of hydrogen production pathways relevant to hypersonic aviation, including cost, carbon intensity, and technology readiness level (TRL).

Cost estimates are from IRENA (2020) for green hydrogen; IEA (2022) for blue hydrogen; Lazard (2025) for updated cost ranges. Carbon intensity values are from Kossarev, Scholz, and Hornung (2022) and IPCC (2023). TRL assessments are from author’s synthesis based on technology roadmaps (IEA, 2022; IRENA, 2020). Land and water use are from IRENA (2020) and BNEF (2023).

The critical observation from Table 5 is the gap between green hydrogen’s cost (€4–8/kg near-term) and blue hydrogen (€2–3/kg). For hypersonic P2P transport to achieve climate benefits, green hydrogen is essential, but its current cost premium of 2–3× over blue hydrogen would make DOCs prohibitively high. The projected green hydrogen cost trajectory is €2–3/kg by 2035–2040 and €1–2/kg by 2050, driven by declining electrolyzer capital costs (from €800–1200/kW to €200–400/kW) and falling renewable electricity prices (€20–40/MWh) (IRENA, 2020; Lazard, 2025). However, these projections assume aggressive deployment—100+ GW of electrolysis capacity by 2030 globally, compared to ∼1 GW today (IEA, 2022).

3.6.2 Liquefaction: the energy bottleneck

Hydrogen liquefaction is energy-intensive. Current large-scale (30+ tons/day) plants consume 10–15 kWh/kg LH₂, representing 30%–40% of LH₂’s lower heating value (LHV = 33.3 kWh/kg or 120 MJ/kg). The theoretical minimum work for hydrogen liquefaction (from 300 K to 20.3 K at 1 bar) is 3.9 kWh/kg, indicating current processes operate at 26%–39% thermodynamic efficiency. Advanced liquefaction processes (e.g., using mixed refrigerants, magnetic refrigeration, or ortho-para conversion optimization) could reduce energy consumption to 6–8 kWh/kg (45%–50% efficiency) by 2030–2035 (IEA, 2022).

For a fleet of 100 hypersonic aircraft each consuming 55 tons of LH₂ per mission (representative for a transpacific route with 100 passengers), with one mission per day per aircraft, total daily consumption is 5,000 tons. Annual consumption is 1.65 million tons. Liquefaction energy at 12 kWh/kg = 21.9 TWh/year—equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of approximately two million European households. Liquefaction plant capital cost at €500–1000/(ton/year) capacity would be €0.9–1.8 billion for the base plant. If green hydrogen is produced on-site via electrolysis, additional electrolyzer capacity of 15–20 GW (at 50%–60% capacity factor) would be required, with capital cost of €10–20 billion at current prices (€800–1000/kW) (IRENA, 2020).

Comparing the infrastructure estimates above with aircraft development cost: a 100-aircraft fleet at €100–200 million per aircraft implies a total aircraft acquisition cost of €10–20 billion. Development cost for a clean-sheet hypersonic airframe and TBCC propulsion is estimated at €10–30 billion (Maynard et al., 2025; Fusaro et al., 2020). For green hydrogen infrastructure serving the same fleet: electrolyzer CAPEX (€10–20 billion), liquefaction plant (€0.9–1.8 billion), transport infrastructure (€0.5–2 billion), and airport storage/dispensing (€0.3–3.5 billion) total €12–27 billion. This is comparable to, and in some scenarios exceeding, the aircraft development and acquisition cost. The ratio of infrastructure to aircraft cost ranges from approximately 0.6× (lower bound) to 2.7× (upper bound), with the central estimate being 1.5–2.0×. This inversion of traditional aerospace economics—where infrastructure is no longer a minor support cost but a dominant system cost comparable to or exceeding the vehicle itself—is a key insight for policymakers and investors. For context, current subsonic aviation infrastructure (fuel depots, airports) accounts for less than 5% of total system cost; hypersonic hydrogen P2P reverses this relationship.

3.6.3 Transport and storage logistics

Table 6 compares transport modes for delivering hydrogen from production sites to airports.

Cost addition estimates are author’s synthesis from IEA (2022), BNEF (2023), and project-specific data (e.g., H2FC, European Hydrogen Backbone). Pipeline costs are from IEA (2022); truck costs are from BNEF (2023); ship costs are from Lloyd’s Register (2025).

For a global hypersonic network connecting major hubs (New York-London, Los Angeles-Tokyo, Dubai-Sydney, etc.), the required delivered hydrogen cost at airports is €3–5/kg (green) or €2–3/kg (blue). Achieving these delivered costs requires: (a) production at or very near major airports to minimize transport distance, (b) very high utilization (>5000 h/year) of liquefaction and electrolysis assets, and (c) grid electricity prices below €40/MWh for green hydrogen. Most major airports (Heathrow, JFK, Narita, Dubai International) lack adjacent land for GW-scale electrolysis and would require pipeline or tanker delivery from industrial zones 50–200 km away, adding €0.5–1.5/kg in transport cost.

3.6.4 Airport infrastructure requirements

Retrofitting existing airports for LH₂ refueling presents substantial CAPEX and spatial challenges, Table 7.

Cost estimates are author’s synthesis based on airport infrastructure case studies (Heathrow LH₂ feasibility study, 2021a; Rotterdam Hydrogen Hub, 2022). Unit costs reflect cryogenic equipment suppliers and airport construction estimates. Specific sources include Heathrow LH₂ feasibility study (2021b) for storage and dispensing estimates; Linde/Air Liquide/Chart Industries catalogues for cryogenic equipment costs; EASA (2022) and UK HSE (2023) for safety system requirements. The wide range reflects the uncertainty in retrofit complexity and local regulatory requirements.

For a global network of 20 hub airports serving a 100-aircraft fleet, total airport infrastructure CAPEX is €0.3–3.5 billion. Spread over 20 years, this adds €0.02–0.25/kg to delivered hydrogen cost depending on throughput.

3.7 Economic viability and levelized cost of travel (LCOT)

This section integrates the preceding analyses into a unified techno-economic framework for hypersonic P2P transport.

3.7.1 Direct operating cost (DOC) model

The business case remains formidable. Comprehensive cost models using Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) of the form:are essential (Fusaro et al., 2018). Fuel cost, particularly for “green” liquid hydrogen, is the dominant driver of direct operating costs (DOC), expressed as:

(Maynard et al., 2025). Projected reductions in hydrogen cost to ∼2 €/kg could lower its share of DOC from ∼90% to ∼70% (Fusaro et al., 2020), but high development costs and low initial utilization rates challenge the addressable market (Webber, 2013; Kelly et al., 2009).

The fuel cost share of DOC is highly sensitive to depreciation assumptions, vehicle utilization, and the amortization of development and infrastructure. Fusaro et al. (2020) estimated the fuel share at 70%–90% based on a limited set of assumptions (10-year vehicle life, 1,500 flight hours/year, €3–5/kg H₂, excluding infrastructure amortization). However, when infrastructure amortization and vehicle development cost amortization are included, the fuel share drops significantly. For a scenario with hydrogen at €2/kg, the fuel component of DOC is roughly €1,800 per 10,000-km trip. However, if airframe amortization increases to €2,000/trip (due to lower utilization of 500 h/year), maintenance to €3,000/trip (extreme environment), and infrastructure amortization to €500/trip, the total DOC rises to €7,300, and the fuel share falls to 25%. This demonstrates that under low-utilization, high-depreciation scenarios, hydrogen cost becomes less dominant, but total DOC becomes prohibitively high. Conversely, at high utilization (1,500 h/year) and with development costs fully amortized over a large fleet, the fuel share can exceed 90% for €6/kg H₂. The sensitivity analysis in Supplementary Appendix Table A1 captures this variation.

Table 8 presents the economic sensitivity parameters for hypersonic P2P transport.

Table 8’s development cost refers solely to the aircraft program (design, prototyping, testing, certification). Table 9 proposed later presents total system investment, which includes infrastructure (production, liquefaction, transport, airports) and fleet acquisition, and can reach €50–200 billion for a mature network. The difference is reconciled as: Table 8 aircraft development (€10–30B) + Table 7 airport infrastructure (€0.3–3.5B) + Table 5 and 6 production/liquefaction (€10–25B) + fleet acquisition (100 aircraft × €100–200M = €10–20B) = total Table 9 range of €30–80B for early phases and €100–250B for mature phase.

3.7.2 Levelized cost of travel (LCOT) framework

Monte Carlo simulation of LCOT yields the following 95% confidence intervals for the green hydrogen scenario (€3/kg, 0 g CO₂e): LCOT = €0.45–0.72 passenger-km^-1 (10th–90th percentile: €0.49–0.67). The probability of LCOT falling below €0.60 passenger-km^-1 is estimated at 58% under baseline assumptions, rising to 82% if electrolyzer CAPEX falls to €300/kW and liquefaction energy drops to 8 kWh/kg.

Table 10 presents LCOT results for a representative hypersonic P2P aircraft (100 passengers, 10,000 km range, one flight per day, 300 flights per year, 15-year life) under alternative hydrogen supply scenarios, compared to subsonic business class (B787, Jet-A) and supersonic (Boom Overture, SAF).

3.8 Lifecycle assessment: well-to-wake (WTWa) emissions

Table 11 presents well-to-wake (WTWa) emissions for alternative hydrogen pathways and competing modes, expressed as g CO₂e per passenger-km. Following aviation LCA standards, we include 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) for all climate forcers (IPCC, 2023). The greenhouse gases included are CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and NOx, with GWP₁₀₀ applied. The GWP of fugitive H₂ is assumed to be 11–13.

3.9 Sonic boom mitigation and overland flight constraints

While not primarily an energy topic, sonic boom regulation directly impacts the addressable market size and thus the business case for hydrogen infrastructure investment. Rudenko and Makov (2021) provide a comprehensive review of sonic boom from the physics of nonlinear waves to acoustic ecology; Plotkin (1989) presents a review of sonic boom theory; Lipkens and Blackstock (1998) describe model experiments on sonic boom propagation through turbulence.

Public acceptance and regulatory approval for overland flight require drastically reducing sonic boom disturbance. The sonic boom overpressure (Δp) scales with vehicle length (L) and weight (W):

This involves shaping the vehicle to reduce and control the N-wave signature, assessed using metrics such as Perceived Loudness in Decibels (PLdB) and integrated population exposure models (Callsen et al., 2023; Mauriello et al., 2024a). Trajectory optimization, often using algorithms like NSGA-II, must balance this constraint with performance and heating objectives (Mauriello et al., 2024a).

For energy systems planning, the implication is clear: hypersonic overland flight is unlikely to be permitted in populated regions before 2040–2050, if ever. Therefore, the initial market is limited to overwater routes (transatlantic, transpacific) connecting coastal hub airports. This geographic constraint reduces the total addressable market to approximately 20–30 city pairs, limiting fleet size to 50–150 aircraft and constraining the scale of hydrogen infrastructure investment.

3.10 Market development, staging, and policy pathways

This section integrates the economic, infrastructure, and emissions results into a staged market development pathway and identifies policy levers to accelerate deployment.

A near-term path may involve smaller, business-jet-sized vehicles (e.g., HyPlane, S4) targeting cruise Mach 4–8 with 6–20 passengers (Russo and Savino, 2015; Savino, 2014; Russo et al., 2021). Utilizing less complex turboramjet cycles and existing materials like titanium alloys, these vehicles could serve niche markets in point-to-point travel and suborbital space tourism, providing a technological stepping stone despite higher per-passenger-kilometer costs.

Table 9 presents staged market development pathway and infrastructure investment.

To clarify the relationship between cost categories in Tables 8 and 9, three mutually exclusive categories are defined:

Category A—Aircraft Programme Development: This includes design, prototyping, ground testing, flight test campaign, and certification for a clean-sheet hypersonic airframe and TBCC propulsion system. Estimated at €10–30 billion based on scaling from historical civil and military aircraft programs (Maynard et al., 2025; Fusaro et al., 2020).

Category B—Fleet Acquisition: This includes the manufacturing cost of the aircraft fleet itself. At €100–200 million per aircraft for a 100-aircraft fleet, this amounts to €10–20 billion.

Category C—Infrastructure: This includes hydrogen production plants (electrolysis, €10–20B), liquefaction plants (€0.9–1.8B), transport infrastructure (pipelines, tankers, €0.5–2B), and airport storage/dispensing (€0.3–3.5B). Total Category C = €12–27B.

Total System Investment (Table 9) = Category A+ Category B+ Category C = €32–77B for early phases, rising to €100–250B for mature networks. Table 8 refers specifically to Category A (programme development). Table 9 refers to total system investment (A + B + C).

Monte Carlo analysis of total system investment yields 95% confidence intervals: Phase one total investment = €18–42B; Phase two = €52–118B; Phase three = €115–285B. The probability of achieving Phase two investment targets by 2045 is estimated at 45% under current policy trajectories, rising to 72% with aggressive policy intervention.

The chicken-and-egg problem: Aircraft manufacturers will not invest in hypersonic P2P without assured hydrogen supply at target cost (<€3/kg). Energy companies will not invest in LH₂ infrastructure without assured demand from a committed fleet. This coordination failure requires government intervention—either through advance market commitments (AMCs) where governments guarantee purchase of future hydrogen volumes, or through public-private partnerships (PPPs) that share infrastructure investment risk (IEA, 2023).

3.11 Other technical and non-technical hurdles

Safety and Certification: This is a foundational hurdle for hypersonic P2P transport. Preliminary hazard assessments and fault-tree analyses conducted for concepts like the SpaceLiner highlight critical failure modes, such as propulsion system failure during ascent or loss of control during high-speed glide (Lariviere and Kezirian, 2019). Recent analysis underscores that high-speed aviation exhibits statistically different safety trends compared to subsonic aviation and suffers from a lack of dedicated research and investment into safety and reliability (Pollock and Wild, 2024). This underscores the need for stringent safety protocols and designs adhering to standards like the IAASS-SSI-1700 Commercial Human-Rated System from the outset (Nishimoto and Kezirian, 2023). International aviation bodies, including ICAO and EASA, are expected to provide their first provisional framework documents outlining a “certification basis” for hypersonic passenger vehicles. These will not be final rules but will establish the core set of airworthiness objectives and proposed means of compliance, giving manufacturers a critical regulatory target to design toward for the first time.

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDAO): Advancing these concepts requires high-fidelity MDAO frameworks that simultaneously weigh conflicting objectives: minimizing DOC, managing heat loads, mitigating sonic boom, and ensuring structural integrity (Mauriello et al., 2024a; Mauriello et al., 2024b). These tools must be validated by a new wave of experimental data from major flight test campaigns (e.g., DARPA’s HAWC, AFRL’s Mayhem) and ground facility experiments to close knowledge gaps in aerothermodynamics, propulsion mode transition, and materials performance.

Operational Concepts: Unique operational models, such as in-flight refueling from tanker aircraft for rocket-powered concepts (Lauer et al., 2015), have been proposed to improve mass fraction and feasibility. Defining safe and efficient air traffic management procedures for hypersonic corridors, including climb, cruise, and descent profiles that minimize community noise and boom impact, is another critical, non-technical challenge.

4 Summary

The analysis confirms that LH₂ enables three interdependent technical pillars—TBCC propulsion, adaptive morphing aerodynamics, and integrated TEMS—whose convergence is a prerequisite for commercial viability. These technologies are interdependent and must converge within a Validated High-Fidelity MDAO framework. The success of this integrated technical development (solid arrows) is a necessary precondition for commercial viability. In the dependency map, the central enabler, liquid hydrogen (LH₂), is positioned at the top to illustrate that it directly enables all three technical pillars: TBCC propulsion, adaptive morphing aerodynamics, and the integrated TEMS. These three pillars are interconnected through bidirectional arrows to emphasize their strong interdependence, meaning progress in one area directly influences the others. The hydrogen supply chain—encompassing production, liquefaction, storage, transport, and airport dispensing—then feeds into the C_fuel cost parameter, which in turn becomes a key input to the validated high-fidelity MDAO framework. The MDAO hub serves as the central convergence point where all technologies integrate before reaching the final outcome: commercial hypersonic point-to-point (P2P) transport. Parallel to this technical convergence, three external constraints—environmental (sonic boom regulation), economic (hydrogen fuel cost and infrastructure), and regulatory (airworthiness certification)—act as parallel prerequisites and are represented by dashed arrows pointing toward the outcome. The chart uses a clear color code: blue for the three technical pillars, yellow for the hydrogen supply chain and economics, green for the MDAO integration hub, red for the external constraints, and purple for the final commercial outcome.

Table 12 summarizes the critical path by detailing the current status, target requirements, and energy system dependencies for ten key domains—propulsion, aerodynamics, thermal management, MDAO, hydrogen production, liquefaction, transport, airport infrastructure, certification, and sonic boom regulation—demonstrating that simultaneous progress across all fronts is essential for commercial hypersonic P2P transport to become a reality.

The Energy System Dependence column identifies how each technological requirement imposes demands on the broader hydrogen supply chain. For propulsion and thermal management, the dependence is direct: the aircraft requires H₂ at specific pressure, temperature, and flow rates. For aerodynamics and MDAO, the dependence is indirect through the vehicle weight and volume determined by H₂ tankage. For certification and sonic boom, the dependence is market-driven: without regulatory approval for overland flight, the addressable market is too small to justify infrastructure investment.

The critical path analysis reveals that the 2030 target is achievable only under the most optimistic assumptions for all domains simultaneously—a low-probability outcome. A more realistic commercial deployment timeline begins with Phase one (niche overwater, 10–30 aircraft) around 2038–2042, with Phase two (early commercial, 50–100 aircraft) around 2045–2050.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, while TBCC propulsion and adaptive morphing surfaces address the fundamental vehicle performance challenges, they are only part of a much larger ecosystem of requirements whose success is predicated on the adoption of liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen’s unparalleled specific impulse and cooling capacity are not merely beneficial but essential for hypersonic air-breathing efficiency, making it the indispensable enabler for the concept. However, this creates a cascade of interdependent challenges: the vehicle’s design is dominated by hydrogen’s low density, its operation depends on a nascent green hydrogen infrastructure, and its economic viability is acutely sensitive to hydrogen’s future price.

The central contribution of this paper is a coupled techno-economic framework demonstrating that the aerospace engineering challenges, while formidable, are not the binding constraint on commercial hypersonic P2P travel. That distinction belongs to the energy system: the availability of green hydrogen at €2–3/kg by 2035–2040. At current green hydrogen costs (€5–8/kg), the levelized cost of travel (€0.75/passenger-km) is 3–4× higher than subsonic business class, limiting the market to ultra-premium, low-volume applications. Conversely, if hydrogen costs fall to €2–3/kg (plausible by 2040 with aggressive electrolyzer deployment and cheap renewable electricity), LCOT falls to €0.50–0.60/passenger-km, entering a range where time-sensitive business travelers and high-value cargo could sustain a fleet of 50–150 aircraft.

The environmental case is more nuanced. Green hydrogen hypersonic travel can achieve 150–350 g CO₂e/passenger-km—70%–80% lower than subsonic Jet-A (1,035–1,210 g CO₂e)—but only with near-zero-carbon electricity, minimal hydrogen leakage (<2%), and effective mitigation of high-altitude NOx/contrail effects. The non-CO₂ climate impacts of stratospheric water vapor and NOx require urgent research; preliminary estimates suggest they could erode 20%–50% of the CO₂ benefit. From a climate perspective, high-speed rail (20–40 g CO₂e/passenger-km) remains superior for continental distances, but hypersonic P2P could play a decarbonized role for intercontinental travel where rail is infeasible.

The infrastructure investment required is substantial but not unprecedented. A global network supporting 100 aircraft would require 1.5–2 million tons/year of green hydrogen production capacity (15–20 GW electrolysis, €10–20B CAPEX), 20–30 TWh/year of dedicated renewable electricity, and 20 hub airports with LH₂ storage and dispensing (€0.3–3.5B). While large, these figures are comparable to current investments in offshore wind (€2–3B per GW) or LNG terminals (€1–2B per facility). The key barrier is coordination: aircraft, hydrogen production, and airport infrastructure investments must advance in lockstep, requiring government-led de-risking through advance market commitments, public-private partnerships, and green hydrogen mandates.

Therefore, progress cannot be sequential but must be concurrent across the entire value chain—advancing high-fidelity MDAO validated by flight test data, developing certified cryogenic tank and thermal management systems, establishing a provisional regulatory framework, and de-risking the hydrogen economy. The staged deployment pathway proposed in Table 9 positions 2030 as an aspirational benchmark for integrated flight testing, with commercial deployment not beginning before the mid-2030s. A realistic staging places the first niche commercial operations in the 2038–2042 timeframe and full market maturity beyond 2050. The integration of these technical, energy, economic, and certification pillars will determine if hypersonic P2P travel can transition from a compelling study-phase concept to a tangible commercial reality. The path to 90-min global travel is not a race to solve a single problem but rather a monumental exercise in system-of-systems integration, with the hydrogen energy system and the aircraft evolving as tightly coupled co-dependent technologies. Success requires treating hypersonic P2P not as an aerospace project with an energy requirement, but as an energy-transport system from the outset.

The central result is that viability is infrastructure-constrained, not primarily aerospace-constrained. Six concrete recommendations for further work are: (1) integrated TBCC flight tests to validate mode-transition performance and quantify the Isp penalty under realistic conditions; (2) atmospheric modeling of non-CO₂ effects at hypersonic cruise altitudes (30–40 km) to quantify stratospheric water vapor and NOx impacts; (3) infrastructure siting optimization to identify optimal locations for green hydrogen production co-located with major airports; (4) advanced liquefaction technology development to reduce the 30%–40% energy penalty; (5) international certification standards for LH₂ aircraft to provide regulatory certainty for investors; and (6) socioeconomic assessment of the broader impacts of 90-min global travel on business patterns, tourism, and global equity.

References

• 1

  Airbus (2023). Global Market Forecast. Airbus S.A.S. Available online at: https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2023-06/Airbus%20Global%20Market%20Forecast%202023-2042%20Presentation.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AndersonJ. D. (2009). “Hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics,” in AIAA Education Series. Third Edition. Available online at: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.105142 (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BaoC.WangP.TangG. (2021). Integrated method of guidance, control and morphing for hypersonic morphing vehicle in glide phase. Chin. J. Aeronautics34 (5), 535–553. 10.1016/j.cja.2020.11.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BertinJ. J.CummingsR. M. (2003). Fifty years of hypersonics: where we've been, where we're going. Prog. Aerosp. Sci.39 (6-7), 511–536. 10.1016/S0376-0421(03)00079-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BertinJ. J.CummingsR. M. (2006). Critical hypersonic aerothermodynamic phenomena. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.38, 129–157. 10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BNEF (2023). 2023 Hydrogen Levelized Cost Update: Green Beats Gray. London: Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Available online at: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/2023-hydrogen-levelized-cost-update-green-beats-gray/ (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Boeing (2023). “Commercial market outlook 2023-2042,” in Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Seattle. Available online at: https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/market/assets/downloads/2023-CMO_Hulst-Presentation.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BorettiA. (2023). How close is a hydrogen hypersonic commercial aircraft?Int. J. Hydrogen Energy48 (28), 10684–10691. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BorettiA. (2024). Hydrogen hypersonic combined cycle propulsion: advancements, challenges, and applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy55, 394–399. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.11.234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BuX.LuoR.LvM.LeiH. (2024). Adaptive fuzzy safety control of hypersonic flight vehicles pursuing adaptable prescribed behaviors: a sensing and adjustment mechanism. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.32 (12), 7050–7062. 10.1109/TFUZZ.2024.3476393

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CallsenS.WilkenJ.StappertS.SippelM. (2023). Feasible options for point-to-point passenger transport with rocket propelled reusable launch vehicles. Acta Astronaut.212, 100–110. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.07.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ChenH.WangP.TangG. (2023). Fuzzy disturbance observer-based fixed-time sliding mode control for hypersonic morphing vehicles with uncertainties. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.59 (4), 3521–3530. 10.1109/TAES.2022.3227886

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ColeyM. D.RanaL.ChudobaB. (2014). “Assessing the adaptability of the 1965 USAF space planners guide for a modern spaceliner-type hypersonic point-to-point mission,”. in AIAA Aviation Forum (Reston, Virginia, United States: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics). AIAA 2014-4412. 10.2514/6.2014-4412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CurranE. T. (2001). Scramjet engines: the first forty years. J. Propuls. Power17 (6), 1138–1148. 10.2514/2.5875

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DaiP.YanB.HuangW.ZhenY.WangM.LiuS. (2020). Design and aerodynamic performance analysis of a variable-sweep-wing morphing waverider. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.98, 105703. 10.1016/j.ast.2020.105703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  D’OrianoV.SavinoR.VisoneM. (2018). Aerothermodynamic study of a small hypersonic plane. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol.90 (2), 471–480. 10.1108/AEAT-06-2015-0151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  EASA (2022). Hydrogen and its potential in aviation | EASA. Available online at: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/hydrogen-and-its-potential-aviation (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  EfthymiadouM. E.CharitopoulosV. M.PapageorgiouL. G. (2025). Optimization approach for hydrogen infrastructure planning under uncertainty. Industrial and Eng. Chem. Res.64 (14), 7431–7451. 10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  European Commission (2024). Revision of the EU emission trading system (ETS). Brussels. Available online at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/carriage/revision-of-the-eu-emission-trading-system-(ets)/report?sid=10101 (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FryR. S. (2004). A century of ramjet propulsion technology evolution. J. Propuls. Power20 (1), 27–58. 10.2514/1.9178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  FusaroR.FerrettoD.VercellaV.ViolaN.VillaceV. F.SteelantJ. (2018). “Life cycle cost estimation methodology for hypersonic transportation systems,” in 31st Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. Available online at: https://www.icas.org/icas_archive/ICAS2018/data/papers/ICAS2018_0425_paper.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  FusaroR.FerrettoD.ViolaN.VillaceV. F.SteelantJ. (2019). A methodology for preliminary sizing of a thermal and energy management system for a hypersonic vehicle. Aeronautical J.123 (1268), 1508–1544. 10.1017/aer.2019.109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  FusaroR.VercellaV.FerrettoD.ViolaN.SteelantJ. (2020). Economic and environmental sustainability of liquid hydrogen fuel for hypersonic transportation systems. CEAS Space J.12 (3), 441–462. 10.1007/s12567-020-00311-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GaglioE.CecereA.MungiguerraS.SavinoR.VisoneM.LanzettaM. (2021). “Aerodynamic study of airframe-engine integration of a supersonic business jet,”. in AIAA Aviation Forum (Reston, Virginia, United States: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics). AIAA 2021-4200. 10.2514/6.2021-4200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GaglioE.VisoneM.LanzettaM.MungiguerraS.CecereA.SavinoR. (2023). Mixed-compression supersonic intake and engine–airframe integration. J. Spacecr. Rockets60 (4), 1100–1111. 10.2514/1.A35532

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GanW.YanM.YaoW.GuoJ.FangJ.AiX.et al (2021). Multi-network coordinated hydrogen supply infrastructure planning for the integration of hydrogen vehicles and renewable energy. IEEE Trans. Industry Appl.58 (2), 2875–2886. 10.1109/tia.2021.3109558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GuoW.LiuJ.QinW.LanX.BaiH.LiX. (2026). Robust adaptive dynamic programming for morphing air-breathing hypersonic vehicles under unmatched uncertainty. Sci. China Inf. Sci.69 (2), 122205. 10.1007/s11432-024-4386-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Heathrow LH₂ feasibility study (2021a). 2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf. Available online at: https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Heathrow LH₂ Feasibility Study (2021b). Liquid Hydrogen Infrastructure at Heathrow Airport: Technical and Economic Assessment. Report Prepared for Heathrow Airport Ltd. Available online at: https://www.heathrow.com/co ntent/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HugoA.RutterP.PistikopoulosS.AmorelliA.ZoiaG. (2005). Hydrogen infrastructure strategic planning using multi-objective optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy30 (15), 1523–1534. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.04.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  IEA (2022). Global Hydrogen Review 2022. Paris: International Energy Agency. Available online at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022 (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  IEA (2023). Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis - IEA. Paris: International Energy Agency. iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8ad619b9-17aa-473d-8a2f-4b90846f5c19/NetZeroRoadmap_AGlobalPathwaytoKeepthe1.5CGoalinReach-2023Update.pdf. (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  IRENA (2020). Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency. Available online at: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_cost_2020.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  JiaoX.FidanB.JiangJ.KamelM. (2015). Adaptive mode switching of hypersonic morphing aircraft based on type-2 TSK fuzzy sliding mode control. Sci. China Inf. Sci.58 (7), 1–15. 10.1007/s11432-015-5349-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KellyM. J.CharaniaA. C.OldsJ. R. (2009). “Simulating global hypersonic point-to-point transportation networks,” in 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. AIAA 2009-6403. 10.2514/6.2009-6403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KossarevK.ScholzA. E.HornungM. (2022). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment and operating cost analysis of long-range hydrogen and biofuel fueled transport aircraft. CEAS Aeronautical J.14, 3–28. 10.1007/s13272-022-00627-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KountourisI.BramstoftR.MadsenT.Gea-BermúdezJ.MünsterM.KelesD. (2024). A unified European hydrogen infrastructure planning to support the rapid scale-up of hydrogen production. Nat. Communications15 (1), 5517. 10.1038/s41467-024-49867-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  LariviereM.KezirianM. T. (2019). Preliminary safety assessment of the DLR SpaceLiner vehicle. J. Space Saf. Eng.6 (1), 15–23. 10.1016/j.jsse.2019.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  LauerC. J.OnukiM.HarilloR. (2015). “The rocketplane XS-1 mach 12 suborbital spaceplane - a case study for high speed point to point transportation safety and operational issues,” in Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC, 8172–8174. Available online at: https://dl.iafastro.directory/event/IAC-2015/paper/29403/.11 (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Lazard (2025). 2025 LCOE+ Report. New York: Lazard Ltd.Available online at: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LinW.XuH.LanX. (2024). Development and key technology analysis of turbine-based combined cycle engine. J. Tsinghua Univ. Sci. Technol.64 (9), 1521–1535. 10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2024.27.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LipkensB.BlackstockD. T. (1998). Model experiment to study sonic boom propagation through turbulence. Part I: general results. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.103 (1), 148–158. 10.1121/1.421114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LiuH.WangG.AnS.LiuK. (2026). Knowledge-informed and data-driven fault tolerant control method for hypersonic morphing vehicles; Yuhang Xuebao. J. Astronautics47 (1), 245–254. 10.3873/j.issn.1000-1328.2026.01.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Lloyd’s Register (2025). Applying alternative fuels to existing ships | LR. Available online at: https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/research-reports/2025/applying-alternative-fuels-to-existing-ships/ (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LuQ.SunR.LuY.ZhaoR. (2024). Enhanced safety-critical control of hypersonic vehicles with multiple constraints. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, Early View35, 1294–1302. 10.1002/rnc.7723

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MaurielloT.WilkenJ.CallsenS.BusslerL.SippelM. (2024a). Multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization of the aerodynamic shape of the SpaceLiner passenger stage. Acta Astronaut.224, 244–265. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.07.054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MaurielloT.CallsenS.BusslerL.WilkenJ.SippelM. (2024b). “Multidisciplinary design assessment of promising aerodynamic shapes for hypersonic passenger transport,” in IAF Space Transportation Solutions and Innovations Symposium, 269–287. 10.52202/078373-0031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MaynardI. W.PatelH. R.ChudobaB. (2025). Hypersonic Point-to-Point transportation benchmark study (Boost-Glide Versus cruise): methodology. J. Spacecr. Rockets62 (5), 1784–1800. 10.2514/1.A36296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MukhopadhayaJ.RutherfordD. (2022). Performance Analysis of Evolutionary hydrogen-powered Aircraft. Washington, D.C: International Council on Clean Transportation ICCT. Available online at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/LH2-aircraft-white-paper-A4-v4.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  NishimotoM.KezirianM. T. (2023). Safety requirements for hyperloop transportation systems: applying NASA human spaceflight safety practices. J. Space Saf. Eng.10 (4), 397–406. 10.1016/j.jsse.2023.10.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  PetersA. B.ZhangD.ChenS.OttC.OsesC.CurtaroloS.et al (2024). Materials design for hypersonics. Nat. Commun.15, 3328. 10.1038/s41467-024-47746-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  PlotkinK. (1989). “Review of sonic boom theory,” in 12th Aeroacoustic Conference, 1105.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  PollockL.WildG. (2024). An examination of high-speed aircraft – part 2: safety and reliability. Transp. Eng.18, 100269. 10.1016/j.treng.2024.100269

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Rotterdam Hydrogen Hub (2022). Hydrogen in Rotterdam | Port of Rotterdam. Available online at: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/port-future/energy-transition/ongoing-projects/hydrogen-rotterdam (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  RudenkoO. V.MakovY. N. (2021). Sonic boom: from the physics of nonlinear waves to acoustic ecology (a review). Acoust. Phys.67 (1), 1–25. 10.1134/s1063771021010036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  RussoG.SavinoR. (2015). “HyPlane: the business case of a small hypersonic airplane for point-to-point and space tourism flights,” in 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. AIAA 2015-3673. 10.2514/6.2015-3673

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  RussoG.VotoC.SavinoR. (2021). S4 - a demonstrator of HYPLANE, a single stage suborbital spaceplane and a hypersonic business jet. Acta Astronaut.183, 244–254. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.03.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SavinoR. (2014). Hyplane for space tourism and business transportation. JBIS - J. Br. Interplanet. Soc.67 (2), 82–89. Available online at: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014JBIS.67.82S/abstract (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ShaoC.ZhaoH.ZhuangN. (2026). Design and mechanical performance analysis of a flexible thermal protection structure for morphing hypersonic vehicles. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.168, 110822. 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110822

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  SippelM. (2009). “SpaceLiner - a visionary concept of an ultra fast passenger transport under investigation in FAST20XX,” in AIAA SPACE Conference and Exposition. AIAA 2009-7439. Available online at: https://elib.dlr.de/64858/1/AIAA2009-7439.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  UK Civil Aviation Authority (2023). Regulating hydrogen use in aviation | UK civil aviation authority. Available online at: https://www.caa.co.uk/about-us/research-and-innovation/regulating-hydrogen-use-in-aviation/ (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  UrzayJ. (2018). Supersonic combustion in air-breathing propulsion systems for hypersonic flight. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.50, 593–627. 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122316-045217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Van WieD. M.D’AlessioS. M.WhiteM. E. (2005). Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion. Johns Hopkins Apl. Tech. Dig.26 (4), 430–437. Available online at: https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V26-N04/26-04-VanWie.pdf (Accessed July 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WanZ.MaL.WangX.SunZ.YangC. (2025). Aerothermoelastic problems of hypersonic vehicles and their recent research progress. Acta Astronaut.236, 982–1011. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.06.055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  WangJ.-X.ZhongM.LiJ.-X.WangS.BianJ.MaoY.et al (2025). Mitigating hypersonic heat barrier via direct cooling enhanced by leidenfrost inhibition. Nat. Commun.16, 6931. 10.1038/s41467-025-62120-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  WangS.ChaoT.WangS.YangM. (2026). Morphing-aerodynamic collaborative control algorithm for hypersonic vehicles. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.169, 111306. 10.1016/j.ast.2025.111306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WebberD. (2013). Point-to-point people with purpose-exploring the possibility of a commercial traveler market for point-to-point suborbital space transportation. Acta Astronaut.92 (2), 193–198. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  XuZ.ChengL.GongS. (2025). Bilevel alternating direction iteration trajectory optimization for hypersonic morphing vehicles. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.166, 110542. 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  YangZ.LiuX.YuC.LiuH. (2026). Cooperative trajectory planning for morphing flight vehicles based on multi-agent reinforcement learning. Yuhang Xuebao/Journal Astronautics47 (1), 90–102. 10.3873/j.issn.1000-1328.2026.01.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  YaoM.LiangS.WangJ.HongY. (2025). Distributed integrated design for optimity and safety of hypersonic flight vehicle swarm. Auton. Intell. Syst.5, 28. 10.1007/s43684-025-00115-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  YilmazN.LoobyK.AtmanliA. (2025). A case analysis: current challenges and future directions for hydrogen-powered jet engines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy150, 150133. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.150133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  YilmazN.ArowoloM.AtmanliA. (2025a). ‘Performance characteristics of liquid hydrogen in rocket propulsion across various thermochemical conditions and oxidizers’. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy167, 151019. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  YilmazN.ArowoloM.AtmanliA. (2025b). A case study on current developments and future direction of hypergolic propellant systems. Aerospace12 (12), 1099. 10.3390/aerospace12121099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  YilmazN.DağıstanlıH. A.AtmanliA.ArowoloM. (2026). Multi-criteria decision framework for performance evaluation of liquid hydrogen rocket fuel systems with different oxidizers. Aerospace13 (7), 621. 10.3390/aerospace13070621

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  YuW.WangY.LingJ.JinF. (2025). Reliability analysis of hypersonic vehicles under aerodynamic heating. CEAS Space J.10.1007/s12567-025-00672-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  ZhangH.FuW. (2026). Predefined-time attitude control for hypersonic morphing vehicles using morphing information-driven event. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.168, 110940. 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110940

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ZhangB.GuoJ.WangH.KangZ.TangS. (2025). Coordinated design of intelligent morphing decision and entry guidance for morphing hypersonic glide vehicles. J. Aerosp. Eng.38 (6), 04025076. 10.1061/JAEEEZ.ASENG-6129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  ZhangH.WangP.TangG.BaoW. (2025). Type-2 fuzzy-based fixed-time control for hypersonic morphing vehicles using dual-triggering mechanism. J. Frankl. Inst.362 (15), 107942. 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2025.107942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  ZhangX.YanB.ZhangH.ZhangY.LiuS.HuangW. (2025). Design and aerodynamic performance of a wide-speed-range morphing aircraft with horizontal takeoff. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A26 (11), 1099–1113. 10.1631/jzus.A2400539

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  ZhaoZ.-T.HuangW.YanL.YangY.-G. (2020). An overview of research on wide-speed range waverider configuration. Prog. Aerosp. Sci.113, 100606. 10.1016/j.paerosci.2020.100606

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar