Search

This is Version 3.0 of the planetary mission entry vehicle document. Three new missions, Re-entry F, Hayabusa, and ARD have been added to t he previously published edition (Version 2.1). In addition, the Huyge ns mission has been significantly updated and some Apollo data correc ted. Due to the changing nature of planetary vehicles during the desi gn, manufacture and mission phases, and to the variables involved in measurement and computation, please be aware that the data provided h erein cannot be guaranteed. Contact Carol Davies at cdavies@mail.arc. nasa.gov to correct or update the current data, or to suggest other missions.

An important element of the Space Shuttle Orbiter safety improvement plan is the improved understanding of its aerodynamic performance so as to minimize the "black zones" in the contingency abort trajectories [1]. These zones are regions in the launch trajectory where it is predicted that, due to vehicle limitations, the Orbiter will be unable to return to the launch site in a two or three engine-out scenario. Reduction of these zones requires accurate knowledge of the aerodynamic forces and moments to better assess the structural capability of the vehicle. An interesting aspect of the contingency abort trajectories is that the Orbiter would need to achieve angles of attack as high as 60deg. Such steep attitudes are much higher than those for a nominal flight trajectory. The Orbiter is currently flight certified only up to an angle of attack of 44deg at high Mach numbers and has never flown at angles of attack larger than this limit. Contingency abort trajectories are generated using the data in the Space Shuttle Operational Aerodynamic Data Book (OADB) [2]. The OADB, a detailed document of the aerodynamic environment of the current Orbiter, is primarily based on wind-tunnel measurements (over a wide Mach number and angle-of-attack range) extrapolated to flight conditions using available theories and correlations, and updated with flight data where available. For nominal flight conditions, i.e., angles of attack of less than 45deg, the fidelity of the OADB is excellent due to the availability of flight data. However, at the off-nominal conditions, such as would be encountered on contingency abort trajectories, the fidelity of the OADB is less certain. The primary aims of a recent collaborative effort (completed in the year 2001) between NASA and Boeing were to determine: 1) accurate distributions of pressure and shear loads on the Orbiter at select points in the contingency abort trajectory space; and 2) integrated aerodynamic forces and moments for the entire vehicle and the control surfaces (body flap, speed brake, and elevons). The latter served the useful purpose of verification of the aerodynamic characteristics that went into the generation of the abort trajectories.

This paper presents the results of a computational fluid dynamics validation exercise using the General Aerodynamic Simulation Program (GASP) code for vehicles under consideration for the X-38 program. The scope of the exercise involved simulation and comparison with wind tunnel aeroheating and aerodynamic data in the hypersonic regime. In addition, simulations were performed and results are presented for the full-scale flight vehicle along an expected re- entry trajectory.

Modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques were used to compute aerodynamic forces and moments of the Space Shuttle Orbiter in specific portions of contingency abort trajectory space. The trajectory space covers a Mach number range of 3.5-15, an angle-of-attack range of 20-60 degrees, an altitude range of 100-190 kft, and several different settings of the control surfaces (elevons, body flap, and speed brake). While approximately 40 cases have been computed, only a sampling of the results is presented here. The computed results, in general, are in good agreement with the Orbiter Operational Aerodynamic Data Book (OADB) data (i.e., within the uncertainty bands) for almost all the cases. However, in a limited number of high angle-of-attack cases (at Mach 15), there are significant differences between the computed results, especially the vehicle pitching moment, and the OADB data. A preliminary analysis of the data from the CFD simulations at Mach 15 shows that these differences can be attributed to real-gas/Mach number effects.

Modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques were used to compute aerodynamic forces and moments of the Space Shuttle Orbiter in specific portions of contingency abort trajectory space. The trajectory space covers a Mach number range of 3.5-15, an angle-of-attack range of 20deg-60deg, an altitude range of 100-190 kft, and several different settings of the control surfaces (elevons, body flap, and speed brake). Presented here are details of the methodology and comparisons of computed aerodynamic coefficients against the values in the current Orbiter Operational Aerodynamic Data Book (OADB). While approximately 40 cases have been computed, only a sampling of the results is provided here. The computed results, in general, are in good agreement with the OADB data (i.e., within the uncertainty bands) for almost all the cases. However, in a limited number of high angle-of-attack cases (at Mach 15), there are significant differences between the computed results, especially the vehicle pitching moment, and the OADB data. A preliminary analysis of the data from the CFD simulations at Mach 15 shows that these differences can be attributed to real-gas/Mach number effects. The aerodynamic coefficients and detailed surface pressure distributions of the present simulations are being used by the Shuttle Program in the evaluation of the capabilities of the Orbiter in contingency abort scenarios.

The multi-dimensional self-adaptive grid code, SAGE, is an important tool in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It provides an efficient method to improve the accuracy of flow solutions while simultaneously reducing computer processing time. Briefly, SAGE enhances an initial computational grid by redistributing the mesh points into more appropriate locations. The movement of these points is driven by an equal-error-distribution algorithm that utilizes the relationship between high flow gradients and excessive solution errors. The method also provides a balance between clustering points in the high gradient regions and maintaining the smoothness and continuity of the adapted grid, The latest version, Version 3, includes the ability to change the boundaries of a given grid to more efficiently enclose flow structures and provides alternative redistribution algorithms.

Grid generation issues relating to the simulation of the X33 aerothermal environment using the GASP code are explored. Required grid densities and normal grid stretching are discussed with regards to predicting the fluid dynamic and heating environments with the desired accuracy. The generation of volume grids is explored and includes discussions of structured grid generation packages such as GRIDGEN, GRIDPRO and HYPGEN. Volume grid manipulation techniques for obtaining desired outer boundary and grid clustering using the OUTBOUND code are examined. The generation of the surface grid with the required surface grid with the required surface grid topology is also discussed. Utilizing grids without singular axes is explored as a method of avoiding numerical difficulties at the singular line.

This new report on Version 2 of the SAGE code includes all the information in the original publication plus all upgrades and changes to the SAGE code since that time. The two most significant upgrades are the inclusion of a finite-volume option and the ability to adapt and manipulate zonal-matching multiple-grid files. In addition, the original SAGE code has been upgraded to Version 1.1 and includes all options mentioned in this report, with the exception of the multiple grid option and its associated features. Since Version 2 is a larger and more complex code, it is suggested (but not required) that Version 1.1 be used for single-grid applications. This document contains all the information required to run both versions of SAGE. The formulation of the adaption method is described in the first section of this document. The second section is presented in the form of a user guide that explains the input and execution of the code. The third section provides many examples. Successful application of the SAGE code in both two and three dimensions for the solution of various flow problems has proven the code to be robust, portable, and simple to use. Although the basic formulation follows the method of Nakahashi and Deiwert, many modifications have been made to facilitate the use of the self-adaptive grid method for complex grid structures. Modifications to the method and the simple but extensive input options make this a flexible and user-friendly code. The SAGE code can accommodate two-dimensional and three-dimensional, finite-difference and finite-volume, single grid, and zonal-matching multiple grid flow problems.

The next generation of Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) design requires careful considerations towards Thermal Protection System (TPS) not only in the high-heating regions, also in the base region. The use of hydrocarbon based liquid propulsion engine and the construction, launch and operational cost limitations places a significant burden on the base region TPS design. The radiation from the rocket-plume is expected to dominate base heating during ascent. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the accuracy of a plume radiation modeling with the PARRAD code. The original PARRAD code has been modified to work with single and multiple /overset grids and plume-field solution generated by computational codes, such as GASP. These modifications will be detailed in the proposed paper. To establish accuracy, simulations of the Space Shuttle Main Engine nozzle were performed and the radiative heating predicted by PARRAD are compared with ground based measurements. These results and pertinent discussion of issues related to accuracy will be detailed. In addition, predictions for the X-34 RLV, yet to be performed, will be presented and the significance (or lack) of base heating due to plume radiation will be discussed.

The multidimensional self-adaptive grid code, SAGE, has proven to be a flexible and useful tool in the solution of complex flow problems. Both 2- and 3-D examples given in this report show the code to be reliable and to substantially improve flowfield solutions. Since the adaptive procedure is a marching scheme the code is extremely fast and uses insignificant CPU time compared to the corresponding flow solver. The SAGE program is also machine and flow solver independent. Significant effort was made to simplify user interaction, though some parameters still need to be chosen with care. It is also difficult to tell when the adaption process has provided its best possible solution. This is particularly true if no experimental data are available or if there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the flow. Another difficulty occurs if local features are important but missing in the original grid; the adaption to this solution will not result in any improvement, and only grid refinement can result in an improved solution. These are complex issues that need to be explored within the context of each specific problem.

This report describes the multidimensional self-adaptive grid code SAGE. A two-dimensional version of this code was described in an earlier report by the authors. The formulation of the multidimensional version is described in the first section of this document. The second section is presented in the form of a user guide that explains the input and execution of the code and provides many examples. Successful application of the SAGE code in both two and three dimensions for the solution of various flow problems has proven the code to be robust, portable, and simple to use. Although the basic formulation follows the method of Nakahashi and Deiwert, many modifications have been made to facilitate the use of the self-adaptive grid method for complex grid structures. Modifications to the method and the simplified input options make this a flexible and user-friendly code. The new SAGE code can accommodate both two-dimensional and three-dimensional flow problems.

SAGE2D is two-dimensional implementation of Self Adaptive Grid Evolution computer program that intelligently redistributes initial grid points on basis of initial flow-field solution. Grids modified according to initial computed flows enabling recomputation at greater accuracy. Written in FORTRAN 77.

NASA technical memorandum discusses solution-adaptive-grid method and Self Adaptive Grid Evolution (SAGE) computer code, which implements method. Provides for redistribution of points in grids used to compute flows, especially supersonic and hypersonic flows containing shocks, and other strong gradient regions, discontinuities, and sheer layers. Performed on basis of flow solution obtained on initial grid, then flow recomputed on adapted grid.

A new three-dimensional (3D) adaptive grid code based on the algebraic, solution-adaptive scheme of Nakahashi and Deiwert is developed and applied to a variety of problems. The new computer code, SAGE, is an extension of the same-named two-dimensional (2D) solution-adaptive program that has already proven to be a powerful tool in computational fluid dynamics applications. The new code has been applied to a range of complex three-dimensional, supersonic and hypersonic flows. Examples discussed are a tandem-slot fuel injector, the hypersonic forebody of the Aeroassist Flight Experiment (AFE), the 3D base flow behind the AFE, the supersonic flow around a 3D swept ramp and a generic, hypersonic, 3D nozzle-plume flow. The associated adapted grids and the solution enhancements resulting from the grid adaption are presented for these cases. Three-dimensional adaption is more complex than its 2D counterpart, and the complexities unique to the 3D problems are discussed.

An aerobraking orbital transfer vehicle (AOTV) (80) has aerobrake (82) with a blunted raked-off circular-cone configuration. The other components of the AOTV, including command/control module (95), fuel tanks (86, 88, 89 and 91), rocket engines (94) and afterbody (84), are positioned substantially along resultant force axis (104) of the AOTV (80). The axis (104) coincides with the resultant (sum of lift and drag) force vector. Afterbody (84) is mounted behind the aerobrake (82) with its length extending rearwardly from the aerobrake. The base flow clearance angle .phi. of the aerobrake (80) is 25.degree., thus allowing the afterbody (84) to extend rearwardly from the aerobrake (82) to a much greater extent than possible with a raked-off elliptic-cone aerobraking shield configuration. Afterbody size limitation and other problems associated with the raked-off elliptic-cone aerobraking shield configuration are alleviated by the combination of the aerobrake shape and positioning of the fuel tanks (86, 88, 89 and 91), rocket engines (94) and afterbody (84).