aerodynamics and planetary entry - nasa · lemphasis - the effect of aerodynamic errors,...
Post on 14-Apr-2020
18 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Aerodynamicsand Planetary Entry
Leslie A. YatesGary T. Chapman
Presented at JPLJune 6, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Overview
l Background
l Objectives– General description of planetary entry
– Impact of aerodynamics on trajectory
– Review sources of aerodynamic information
– Review status of aerodynamics
l Concluding remarks, issues, and futuredirections
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Background
l Extensive interest in the 1960’s to 70’s– Research– Probes to Venus, Mars, and Jupiter
l Renewed interest in the 90’s– Probes to Mars, Stardust, Huygen, Genesis
l Project driven environment leads to:– Erosion of expertise and database– Limits innovation
l Greater demand on aerodynamics– Increased program requirements– Aeroassist to reduce costs
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
lGeneral Description of PlanetaryEntry
lDemonstrate role of aerodynamicson planetary entry
lReview sources of aerodynamicinformation
lReview status of aerodynamics ofplanetary entry shapes
Objectives
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Entry
– Max. loads
– Max. heating
l Special events
– Parachute deployment
l Unplanned events
– Vehicle breakup
Schematic of Planetary Entry
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Planar Planetary Entry
l Equations
where
m ˙ V = −qACD + mgsinγ
mV˙ γ = −qACL + mV2
r− g
cosγ
I ˙ ̇ Θ = qAl Cm∑
CL = CL0 + CLα (α − αt )
Cm∑ = Cmα (α − α t ) + Cmq
˙ Θ lV
+
Cm ˙ α ˙ α lV
+ Cmδδ
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Point Mass Behavior
l Equations of motion:
l Important events /issues– Maximum q– Maximum heating– Mach at impact /
parachute deploy– Landing footprint
m ˙ V = −qACD + mgsinγ s
mV˙ γ s = −q A CL0 + CLα (α t + αs )[ ] − m
V2
r− g
cosγ s
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Oscillatory Behavior
l Equations of Motion
l Stability Criteria
– Static:
– Dynamic:
l Important events / issues– Control system design– Amplitude at impact /
parachute deploy
Cmα < 0
I˙ ̇ θ 0 = qAl Cmαα + Cmq
˙ θ 0lV
+ Cm ˙ α ˙ α 0lV
ρACD
mK < ∂q ∂s
q+
∂Cmα ∂s
Cmα
K = 1CD
−CLα + lσ
2Cmq + Cm ˙ α ( )
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Typical Planetary EntryImportant Events / Effects
Impact velocity /parachutedeploy
Maximumdynamicpressure
Maximum heating
Amplitude growth
Minimumamplitude
Impact angle
Mars Pathfinder Data
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
lGeneral Description of PlanetaryEntry
lDemonstrate role of aerodynamicson planetary entry
lReview sources of aerodynamicinformation
lReview status of aerodynamics ofplanetary entry shapes
Objectives
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Impact of Aerodynamics onTrajectory
l Impact demonstrated using trajectorysimulations
l Conventions and definitions– Coordinate systems used for aerodynamic
forces / moments
– Nondimensionalization of the aerodynamicforces / moments
– Static and dynamic stability
l Simulations - Description and examples
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Three coordinate systems used to describe motion:inertial, wind, and body
l Forces - two conventions used– Parallel and normal to flight path
Drag, lift, and side force
– Parallel and normal to body axesAxial, normal, and side force
l Moments– Pitching / yawing referenced to body axes and center of
gravity• Static• Dynamic
– Rolling referenced to body axes and center of gravity
Aerodynamic Forces and Moments
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Nondimensionalizationl Reduces number of simulation variables, resulting
terms valid over wider range of conditions
l Forces:
l Moments:
l Rates:
l Caution: Various quantities used to nondimen-sionalize variables (l or d, V or 2V)
CD = D0.5ρV2 A
Cm = M0.5ρV2 Ad
˙ α = ˙ α d2V
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Coefficient Math Modelsl Aerodynamic coefficients functions of Mach
Number, Reynolds Number, angles, angular rates,control deflections, …
l Look up tables, polynomials, and complicatedfunctions used to model coefficients
Mars Pathfinder Mars 03, Ballistic Range
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Static stability
– If displaced from equilibrium vehicle tends toreturn to or pass through equilibrium point
l Dynamic stability
– Amplitude of oscillatory motion decreases withtime
l Limit cycle
– Motion approaches constant amplitude
Definitions
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Stability – Limit Cycle
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Calculated, 1 Calculated, 2Measured, 1 Measured, 2
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Calculated, 1 Calculated, 2Measured, 1 Measured, 2
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle(deg)
Mach = 1.25Mach = 1.50Mach = 1.75Mach = 2.00Mach = 2.50Mach = 3.00Mach = 3.50
When damping coefficientis nonlinear function ofangle, Mach, complicatedbehaviors occur.
Mars 03 Unstable
Stable, Limit Cycle
Cmq + Cm ˙ α
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Trajectory Simulations
l Brief description of simulations
l Examples
– Linear aerodynamics
– Nonlinear aerodynamics
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Linear Aerodynamics Simulations
l Six-degree-of-freedom, nonlinear mathmodels
l Density profiles, gravitational forces, androtational rates consistent with Mars
l Vehicle specifications and aerodynamicsconsistent with axisymmetric probeconfigurations
l Shallow entry for longer flight paths andbetter demonstration of effects
l Not modeled - winds, controls
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Linear Aerodynamics Simulations(concluded)
l Emphasis - the effect of aerodynamic errors,uncertainties on the entry
l Varied parameters:– Drag, lift coefficient slope, trim lift, trim angle,
moment coefficient slope, damping, roll
l Comparative effects– Forces, moments proportional to dynamic pressure
• 5% variation in density produces similar effect as 5%variation in aerodynamic coefficient
• 5% variation in velocity produces similar effect as 10%variation in aerodynamic coefficient
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Drag CoefficientDynamic Pressure, MachLongitude
1° of longitude translates to ≈60 km
Total Angle
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Lift Coefficient SlopeAmplitude Dynamic Pressure
Longitude
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Trim Lift Coefficient
Altitude Total Angle
Longitude Dynamic Pressure, Mach
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Trim Angle VariationLongitude Dynamic Pressure, Mach
Total Angle
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Pitching Moment CoefficientAmplitude Dynamic Pressure
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Damping Parameter
Longitude
Amplitude Dynamic Pressure
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Roll RateAmplitude Dynamic Pressure
Longitude
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Summary of Linear AerodynamicsSimulations
l Landing footprint– Drag, Trim Lift, Trim angle have large effect– Moment, Damping, and Roll have little or no effect
l Amplitude– Drag, Trim Lift, Trim angle have little effect– Moment has little effect– Lift slope has small effect– Roll and damping coefficient have large effect
l If effective damping, K, used, position and angularmotion largely independent of each other
K = 1CD
−CLα + lσ
2Cmq + Cm ˙ α ( )
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Effects of NonlinearAerodynamics on Trajectory
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Nonlinear Aerodynamics Simulations
l Density profiles, gravitational forcesidentical to those used in linearsimulations
l Vehicle specifications identical to thoseused in linear simulations
l Shallow entry for better demonstration ofeffects
l Nonlinearities consistent with observedfor planetary entry vehicles
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Drag Coefficient (CD = 1.5 - 2 sin2σ)Dynamic Pressure, MachLongitude
Total Angle
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Damping Parameter (Cmq + Cmα = 1.5 eAsin2σ - 0.5 )Amplitude Dynamic Pressure
Longitude
Difference in small angle limitmay be due to modeltumbling and resulting errors
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Summary of NonlinearAerodynamics Simulations
l Landing footprint– Nonlinear drag has effect
– Nonlinear moment, lift effect trim angle and trim lift;therefore they will have an effect
l Amplitude– Nonlinear damping coefficients have significant
impact on amplitude
– Impact of other terms small compared to nonlineardamping coefficient
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Impact of Accurate AerodynamicInformation
l Reduce risks– Parachute deployment
– TPS
l Improve landing precision– Minimize foot print
l Expand landing alternatives
l Reduce control propellant mass margin
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
lGeneral Description of PlanetaryEntry
lDemonstrate role of aerodynamicson planetary entry
lReview sources of aerodynamicinformation
lReview status of aerodynamics ofplanetary entry shapes
Objectives
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Aerodynamic Information
l Effects of uncertainties and nonlinearitiesin aerodynamic coefficients demonstrated
l Sources
– Types
– Availability
– Accuracy
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Sources of AerodynamicInformation
l Theories
l Computational Fluid Dynamics – CFD
l Ground based experiments
– Wind tunnels
– Ballistic ranges
l Flight tests
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Theories
l Inexpensive
l Limited to high Mach number
l Poorly known and not understood
l Useful in some cases for quick estimatesand trends
l Not validated in all cases
l Examples– Free molecular– Newtonian
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
CFD
l For simple configurations provides goodresults for static aerodynamics
l Not thoroughly validated
l Not readily used by non-expert
l Dynamic parameters untried and could beexpensive
l Examples:– Euler - Inviscid– Navier Stokes - Viscid– Navier Stokes - Real Gas
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ground Based Experiments
lWind tunnels
– Standard approach
lBallistic ranges
– More versatile
– Under appreciated
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Wind Tunnels
l Many readily available
l No real gas effects
l Wall effects at transonicMach numbers
l Sting effects in lowsupersonic / transonicMach range
l Dynamic testingdifficult / expensive
StingM
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ballistic Ranges
l Overview given since community is less familiar withthese types of facility
l Experimental approach– Free flying model
– Trajectory measurements obtained from series of orthogonalshadowgraphs taken at known times
l Facility– Range & Launcher
• Small model in sabot• Wide range of Mach, Reynolds numbers• Various gases, real gas effects
– 6 DOF, nonlinear data analysis
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
NASA Ames HFFAFModel Assortment
Test section interiorTest section exterior andshadowgraph film planesLight-gas gun
Images courtesy of NASA Ames Research Center
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Eglin AFB’s ARF
Schematic of the AeroballisticResearch Facility
Interior
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ballistic Range Data
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
time
Calculated, 1 Calculated, 2Measured, 1 Measured, 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30time
Calculated, zCalculated, yMeasured, zMeasured, y
SampleShadowgraph Projected angular and swerve motion
Data from Eglin AFBAerodynamic Research Facility
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Modern 6-DOF Analysis ofBallistic Range Data
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Parameter Estimationl Coefficients found by fitting
calculated trajectories toexperimental measurements
l Trajectory defined by 12, firstorder, coupled, nonlineardifferential equations in threecoordinate systems
l Unknown parameters: nonlinearaerodynamic coefficient termsand initial conditions
l Differentiating equations ofmotion with respect to unknownsprovide method for estimatingcorrections
l Trajectory calculated, correctionsto unknowns estimated, trajectoryre-calculated. Process repeateduntil convergence criteria met
l Single / multi fits
l Error estimates available
Drag: ˙ V = − ρAV2
2m CD − gsinθw
˙ x E = V cosθw cos ψw
Rolling Moment: ˙ p = ρAlV2
2IzCp + Izx
Iz˙ r + pq( ) +
Iy − Iz( )Iz
rp˙ φ w= pw + qw sinφw + rw cos φw( ) tanθw
Pitching, yawing ˙ α = q − qw sec β − p cosα +r sin α( ) tanβmoment: ˙ β = rw secβ + p sinα − rcos α
˙ q = ρAlV2
2IyCM + Izx
Iyr2 − p2( ) +
Iz −Ix( )Iy
rp
˙ r = ρAlV2
2IzCN + Izx
Iz˙ p − qr( ) +
Ix − Iy( )Iz
pq
Lift: ˙ y E = V cos θw sin ψw
˙ z E = −V sin θw˙ θ w= qw cos φw − rw sin φw˙ ψ w= qw sinφw + rw cos φw( ) sec θw
where qw = ρAV2m CL − g cosθw cos φw
rw = − ρAV2m CY + gcosθw sin φw
pw = p cosα + r sin α( ) cosβ + q − ˙ α ( ) sinβ
Equations (6-DOF)
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Parameter Identification - Example
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
20
30
40
50
60
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Direction sines vs. time
Swerve vs time
Down range distance vs time
CD = CD0 +CD1 + CD3 + CD4 M − 1( )[ ]sin2 α
1 + CD2(M − 1)2
M − 1( )
CL = CL1 +CL2 sin2 α
1 + CL3 sin2 α
sinα
Cm = Cm1 + Cm2 M − 2.5( ) +Cm3 sin2 α
1 + Cm4 sin2 α
sinα
Cmq = Cmq,0 + Cmq,1
exp −Cmq,2 MCmq,3 s in2 α
1 + Cmq,4 M − 1( )[ ]6
Coefficient Expansions
Moment
Damping
Lift
Drag
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Sample Ballistic Range Results (MER)
CD = CD0 +CD1 + CD3 + CD4 M − 1( )[ ]sin2 α
1 + CD2(M − 1)2
M − 1( )
c.g. CD0 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD4 x rms (ft)
0.27D 1.327 0.641 8.31 -1.369 -1.92 0.0234± 0.005 0.028 0.40 0.055 0.06
Resultsc.g. CL1 CL2 CL3 y, z rms (ft)
0.27D -1.650 75.02 142.6 0.008± fixed 3.40 fixed
Results
Drag Lift
CL = CL1 +CL2 sin2 α
1 + CL3 sin2 α
sinα
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Sample Ballistic Range Results (MER)
Moment Damping
Cm = Cm1 + Cm2 M − 2.5( ) +Cm3 sin2 α
1 + Cm4 sin2 α
sinα
c.g. Cm1 Cm2 Cm3 Cm4 α rms (°)
0.27D -0.1049 0.00000 0.95 160.6 1.36± fixed fixed 0.02 fixed
Resultsc.g. Cmq,0 Cmq,1 Cmq,2 Cmq,3 Cmq,4 α rms (°)
0.27D -0.298 1.177 5.73 4.37 0.40 1.32fixed 0.123 2.77 0.56 fixed
Results
Cmq = Cmq,0 + Cmq,1
exp −Cmq,2 MCmq,3 s in2 α
1 + Cmq,4 M − 1( )[ ]6
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Other Applications of Modern6-DOF Analysis Tools
l Vertical Wind Tunnel
l Flight Tests
– Helicopter Drop Tests
– Atmospheric Entry
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Flight Tests
l Expensive
l Can be dangerous for lifting bodies
l Time consuming
l Data acquisition difficult
l Analysis subject to unknowns– Winds
– Atmospheric properties
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Summary of Data Sourcesl Theory
– Limited
l CFD– Good capability– Validation required in some areas– Need to develop capability for damping
l Ground based testing– Wind tunnels - good static aerodynamics but limited in
damping, real gas– Ballistic ranges - good static and dynamic aerodynamics
for wide range of conditions but model size limited andno onboard instrumentation
l Flight testing– Expensive– Unknown or variable atmospheric conditions
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
lGeneral Description of PlanetaryEntry
lDemonstrate role of aerodynamicson planetary entry
lReview sources of aerodynamicinformation
lReview status of aerodynamics ofplanetary entry shapes
Objectives
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Aerodynamicsby Flight Regime
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Flight Regimes
l Free molecular
l Transition
l Continuum
– Entry• Hypersonic
– After maximum dynamicpressure
• Supersonic
• Transonic
• Subsonic
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Knudsen number:
l Theory – Free molecular flow
l Direct Monte Carlo simulation – DMS
l Ground base facilities non-existent
l Accuracy not critical in many cases
Free Molecular Regime
Kn = λ d > o(1)
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Free Molecular Flow
l Molecules hit surface and are reflected ina specular or diffuse manner with nocollisions
l Example-Sharp cones
– Specular reflection
– No reflection
l Type of reflection depends on surface
CD0= 4sin2 θ
CD0= 2s in2 θ
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Knudsen number:
l Direct Monte Carlo simulations-DMS
l Low Reynolds number CFD
l Empirical bridging functions
l Experimental facilities non-existent
Transition
Kn = λ d ≅ o(1)
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
l Knudsen number:
l Mach number:
l Theory– Newtonian
• Normal component of momentum converted to pressure• Mach number independent• Capable of calculating both static and dynamic coefficients
l CFD
l Ground based experiments– Wind tunnel
– Ballistic range
Continuum Entry-Hypersonic
Kn = λ d << o(1)
M = V a > 5
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Examples ofHypersonic
Aerodynamics
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Drag and Lift on Simple Shapes(Mach > 5)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 20 40 60 80
Newtonian, Rn/Rb = 0.0Newtonian, Rn/Rb = 0.6Newtonian, Rn/Rb = 0.95Conical Flow TheoryBlunt Cone DataSharp Cone Data
CD
0
Cone Angle
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Newtonian TheoryConical Flow TheoryBlunt Cone Data
CLα
CD 0
Lift: CLα = CPmax - 2CDDrag
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Center of Pressure (Mach > 5)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 20 40 60 80
Sharp ConeSphere SegmentBlunt Cone
xC
p / r b
Cone Half Angle
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Dynamic Stability
For Sharp Cones
where
Based on reference length l and l /V (not l / 2V )
Cmqx= Cmq0
+ CNq0
xl
− Cmα0
xl
− CNα0
xl
2
Cm ˙ α x≡ 0
(plunging motion)
Cmq0= − 1 + tan2 θ( ), Cmα0
= −4 / 3
CNα0= 2
1 + tan2 θ, CNq0
= +4 / 3
Cmqx< 0 for large cone angles
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ballistic Range DataMars Smart Lander, Axisymmetric Configuration
(CO2, M ≈ 18, NASA Ames Research Center)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
0 5 10 15α
Single FitsMulti Fit
-0.040
-0.035
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.0000 5 10 15
α
Single FitsMulti Fit
-0.50
-0.45
-0.40
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.000 5 10 15
RMS Pitch Angle
Single FitsMulti Fit
-0.40
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.000 5 10 15
RMS Pitch Angle
Single FitsMulti Fit
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Supersonic/Transonic
l Mach number:
l No theories for blunt bodies
l CFD– Used extensively
– Not used for dynamics, could be expensive
l Ground based experimental– Wind tunnel
– Ballistic range
5 > M > 0.6
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Examples ofSupersonic/Transonic
Aerodynamics
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Available Data Sets
l Pre 1975– Early research
– PAET /Voyager/Viking
l Post 1985– Huygens Probe
– Stardust
– DS-2
– Genesis
– MER
– Mars Smart Lander
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Stardust Ballistic Range Data (Air, Mach ≈ 2)
Axial Force vs Angle of Attack
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0 5 10 15
Axi
al F
orce
Coe
ff, C
X
Ames (Re_d =1.55e+06)Eglin (CG = 0.35),Re_d = 3.10e+06
Damping Moment vs Angle of Attack
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Dam
ping
Coe
ff, C
mq
Ames (Re_d = 1.55e+06)
Eglin (CG=0.35), Re_d =3.10e+06Eglin Error Bound
Error Bound
Pitching Moment vs Angle of Attack
-0.040-0.035-0.030-0.025-0.020-0.015-0.010-0.0050.000
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Ames (Re_d =1.55e=06)Eglin (CG=0.35),Re_d = 3.10e+6
Normal Force vs Angle of Attack
00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.08
0 5 10 15
Nor
mal
For
ce C
oeff,
CN
Ames (Re_d =1.55e+06)Eglin (CG=0.35,Re_d=3.10e+06)
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Stardust Ballistic Range Data (Air, Mach ≈ 2)
Lift vs Angle of Attack
-0.40-0.35-0.30-0.25-0.20-0.15-0.10-0.050.00
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Lift
Coe
ff, C
L
Nom. Re_d=1.55e+06
Nom. Re=0.27e+06
Pitching Moment vs Angle of Attack
-0.035
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Pitc
h M
omen
t Coe
ff, C
m
Nom. Re_d=1.55e+06
Nom. Re_d=0.27e+06
Damping vs Angle of Attack
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Dam
ping
Coe
ff, C
mq
Nom. Re_d=1.55e+06
Nom. Re_d=0.27e+06
Drag vs Angle of Attack
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, Deg
Dra
g C
oeff,
CD
Nom. Re_d=1.55e+06
Nom. Re_d=0.27e+06
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ballistic Range Pitch Damping Data (Air, Mach ≈ 2)
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20Angle of Attack, degrees
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
4.88° 0.175.55° 0.236.41° 0.337.66° 0.287.69° 0.247.89° 0.368.64° 0.23
9.00° 0.26 9.62° 0.2211.94° 0.4612.66° 0.3714.31° 0.3516.50° 0.1219.50° 0.28
αm Rex10-6 α
m Rex10-6
M∞
Pre 1975
Blunt Probes Linear Results
Post 1985
Huygen’s Probe Noninear Results
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Impact of Afterbody on Dynamics (Air, Mach ≈ 2)
Stardust-TB: Damping vs. Angle of Attack
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack, deg
Dam
ping
Coe
ff, C
mq
Stardust-TB
Stardust-RB
Stardust-S
TB
RB
S
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
P = 110 mmP = 40 mmExperiment
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
P = 110 mmP = 40 mmExperiment
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
RMS Pitch Angle
P = 110 mmP = 40 mmExperiment
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
RMS Pitch Angle
P = 110 mmP = 40 mmExperiment
Pre-testCFD
Ballistic Range DataMars Smart Lander, Tabbed Configuration
CO2, Mach = 2.6, NASA Ames Ballistic Range
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Ballistic Range DataMars Smart Lander, Tabbed ConfigurationMach = 2.6, NASA Ames Ballistic Range
PITCH DAMPING
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
10 15 20 25
RMS Pitch Angle
M3C, C02
M3C, AIR
M3C, Mix
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Summary of Super/TransonicAerodynamics
l Static aerodynamics– Well understood
l Dynamic aerodynamics– Strong base effects that are not understood
– Potential gas dependence
l Tools– CFD, wind tunnels, and ballistic ranges needed
for high quality data base
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Subsonic Aerodynamics
l Mach number:
l No theories
l CFD– Not used for dynamics, would be expensive
l Ground based experimental– Wind tunnel
• Difficult for dynamics• Sting effects
– Ballistic range• Difficult at low speeds
M < 0.6
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Summary of Aerodynamicsl Free molecular
– Reasonably well understood– Accuracy not critical
l Transition– DMS and low Reynolds number CFD plus bridging
functions give reasonable estimates
l Continuum hypersonic– Statics: well understood– Dynamics: validated theory and CFD required
l Supersonic - Transonic– Statics: reasonably well understood– Dynamics: strong base effect; possible gas effect
l Subsonic– Shortage of data– Required only for missions without drogues / parachutes
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Concluding Remarks
l Aerodynamics plays major role in shapingtrajectory
l Accurate aerodynamics database reduces foot-print size and reduces control fuel mass margins
l Aerodynamic understanding can provide missiondesign flexibility
l CFD, wind tunnels, and ballistic ranges all have arole in database generation
l Today’s project driven environment limitsinnovation and is eroding expertise base
Leslie A. Yates(650) 988-0388lyates@aerospacecomputing.com
Copyright © 2002 byAerospaceComputing, Inc.
AerospaceComputing, Inc.
Issues and Future Directions
l Loss of expertise– Develop user friendly training tools– Train new personnel
l Database erosion– Develop user friendly tool kits containing database,
theory and simple CFD, and access tools for morecomplicated CFD
l Gaps in aerodynamic database– Pitch damping
• Understand base effects• Determine effect of gas composition• Validate Newtonian Theory• Develop CFD approach / program
top related