Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems Short Course

Subject: Supersonic RetropropulsionAuthor: Karl Edquist

NASA Langley Research Center

sponsored by

International Planetary Probe Workshop 10

June 15-16, 2013

San Jose, California

Outline• Introduction• Recent Work• Recommended Next Steps

2June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

Introduction

• Problem: Mars EDL technologies are nearing their payload limit

– Mars Science Laboratory = 4.5 m aeroshell + 21.5 m parachute = 0.9 t payload

– Larger supersonic parachutes are inhibited by scaling challenges

• Goals beyond MSL:– More mass (10s of t)– Better accuracy (meters)– Higher landing elevation

• Solution: Use propulsive deceleration = Supersonic Retropropulsion (SRP)

• SRP is considered to be enabling for human-scale (5-40 t) & enhancing for robotic-scale (2-5 t) Mars EDL

Mars EDL with SRP(NASA/TM-2010-216720)

MSL EDL

40 t payload

“As Mars missions approach human class entry masses, the required size of supersonic deployable aerodynamic decelerators renders them impractical…initiation of propulsive deceleration must occur earlier in the descent phase…SRP becomes an enabling technology for human class Mars missions.”- NASA EDL Roadmap (TA09), November 2010.

1.8 MN O/CH43-4 Earth g’s

0.9 t payload

3June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

SRP Early Developments• Wind tunnel tests from 1950s to 1970s studied SRP as an augmentation

to aerodynamic deceleration• General aerodynamic trends were observed, but no development

beyond the laboratory– CD,Total = CD,Aero + CT

– CT (= T/q∞Sref) known from engine thrust and trajectory conditions

– CD,Aero depends on vehicle geometry, jet configuration & thrust magnitude

1 Jet, High Thrust 3 Jets, Low Thrust

Jarvinen, NASA CR NAS 7-576, 1970• Long period of inactivity

from 1970s to 2000s

Mach > 1 Jet

4June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

• Wind Tunnel Testing- Mach 1.8 to 4.6- Cold gas jets

- CT = T/(q∞Sref) = 0 to ~10

- Surface pressure & high-speed video

• CFD Modeling- CFD complicated by

unsteady & turbulent flow

- Promising qualitative (flowfield structure) & quantitative (pressure) comparisons to wind tunnel data

• Flight Test Conceptual Design- Sounding rocket platform- Engine options, notional mass &

packaging

Mach 4.6, CT = 2

FUN3D OVERFLOW

DPLRLaRC 4x4 ARC 9x7

SRP in EDL Project (2010-2011)

• Open Issues- Vehicle configurations, engine

development, aerodynamic stability, aerothermodynamics, vehicle transitions, ground interactions, flight testsJune 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013 5

6June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

NASA LaRC UPWT Test, Mach 4.6, AoA = 0

1 Jet, CT = 2

3 Jets, CT = 2 4 Jets, CT = 2

No Jets

CFD of NASA LaRC UPWT Test3 Jets, Mach 4.6, AoA = 12, CT = 3

FUN3DOVERFLOW

DPLR

7June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

SRP Recommended Next Steps

• Define reference vehicles (robotic & human)– Allows sizing of propulsion system (engines,

tanks, etc.)

• Complete hot-fire engine tests– Provides data for startup transients & effect on

vehicle aerodynamics

• Develop large (100s of kN) throttle-able engines– Required for engine use through touchdown

• Complete Earth-based & Mars precursor flight tests at progressively higher scale & complexity– Reduces risks for mission infusion– Eventually includes vehicle transitions &

touchdown

• Develop high-fidelity EDL simulations– SRP mass, packaging & performance– CFD-based aerosciences tools

ACS

Telemetry Propulsion and Instrumentation

Flight Computer and IMU

8June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013

References1. Adler, M., Wright, M., Campbell, C., Clark, I., Engelund, W., and Manning, R. M., “DRAFT Entry, Descent, and Landing Roadmap,

Technology Area 09," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov/oces/oct/home/roadmaps/index.html, November 2010.

2. Dwyer-Cianciolo, A., et al, “Entry, Descent and Landing Systems Analysis Study: Phase 1 Report,” NASA/TM-2010-216720, July 2010.

3. Dwyer-Cianciolo, A., et al, “Entry, Descent and Landing Systems Analysis Study: Phase 2 Report on Exploration Feed Forward Systems,” NASA/TM-2011-217055, February 2011.

4. Korzun, A., “Aerodynamic and Performance Characterization of Supersonic Retropropulsion for Application to Planetary Entry and Descent,” Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2012.

5. Edquist, K., et al, “Development of Supersonic Retro-Propulsion for Future Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems,” AIAA Paper 2010-5046, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Chicago, IL, 28 June-2 July 2010.

6. Berry, S., et al, “Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Experimental Design for Computational Fluid Dynamics Model Validation,” IEEEAC Paper 1499, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 5-12 March 2011.

7. Berry, S., Rhode, M., Edquist, K., and Player, C., “Supersonic Retropropulsion Experimental Results from the NASA Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel,” AIAA Paper 2011-3489, AIAA Thermophysics Conference, Honolulu, HI, 27 - 30 June 2011.

8. Berry, S., Rhode, M., and Edquist, K., “Supersonic Retropropulsion Experimental Results from the NASA Ames 9- x 7-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel,” AIAA Paper 2012-2704, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 June 2012.

9. Rhode, M., and Oberkampf, W., “Estimation of Uncertainties for a Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Model Validation Experiment in a Wind Tunnel,” AIAA Paper 2012-2707, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 June 2012.

10. Trumble, K., Schauerhamer, D., Kleb, B., and Edquist, K., “Analysis of Navier-Stokes Codes Applied to Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Wind Tunnel Test,” IEEEAC Paper 1471, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 5-12 March 2011.

11. Trumble, K. et al, “An Initial Assessment of Navier-Stokes Codes Applied to Supersonic Retro-Propulsion,” AIAA Paper 2010-5047, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Chicago, IL, 28 June-2 July 2010.

12. Kleb, B., et al “Toward Supersonic Retropropulsion CFD Validation,” AIAA Paper 2010-5047, AIAA Thermophysics Conference, Honolulu, HI, 27 - 30 June 2011.

13. Schauerhamer, D., et al, ”Continuing Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Supersonic Retropropulsion,” AIAA Paper 2012-864, AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting & Exhibit, Orlando, FL, 9-13 January 2012.

14. Zarchi, K., Schauerhamer, D., Kleb, B., Carlson, J. R., and Edquist, K., “Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation and Post-Test Analysis of Supersonic Retropropulsion in the Ames 9×7 Unitary Tunnel,” AIAA Paper 2012-2705, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 June 2012.

15. Post, E., Dupzyk, I., Korzun, A., Dyakonov, A., Tanimoto, R., and Edquist, K., “Supersonic Retropropulsion Flight Test Concepts,” 8 th International Planetary Probe Workshop, Portsmouth, VA, 6-10 June 2011.

9June 15-16, 2013 International Planetary Probe Workshop 10 Short Course 2013