Sem Report

1.
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the seminar entitled RE-ENTRY OF SPACE VEHICLE carried out by Mr. LAKSHMAN V USN 1VW11MAP04 a bonafied student of Visvesvaraya Technological University, Center for Post Graduate Studies, Bengaluru Region, I Semester Master of Technology in AEROSPACE PROPULSION
TECHNOLOGY of the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum during the year 2011-2012. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions indicated for internal assessment have been incorporated in the report deposited in the departmental library. The seminar report has been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements in respect of Seminar work prescribed for the said semester.
Internal Guide Visiting faculty Center for Post Graduate Studies Visvesvaraya Technological University, Bengaluru Region
External Guide
Dr. T. Jagadish Special Officer (Research and Development) In-Charge of Center for Post Graduate Studies Visvesvaraya Technological University, Bengaluru Region
DECLARATION
I, LAKSHMAN V, hereby declare that the report presented in this seminar entitled RE-ENTRY OF SPACE VEHICLE is an authentic collection of information that has been carried out independently by me during my I semester M.Tech in AEROSPACE PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY at Visvesvaraya Technological University, Center for Post Graduate Studies, Bengaluru Region, under the supervision of my guide Dr.R VENKATRAM.
Place: Bangalore
Date:
Name: LAKSHMAN V USN: 1VW11APT04
Signature
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the presentation of this seminar. My deepest thanks to Professor Dr.R Venkatram, the Guide of the seminar, for guiding and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. He has taken pain to go through the seminar and make necessary correction as and when needed. I extend my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. T. Jagadish, Special Officer (Research and Development), In-Charge of Center for Post Graduate Studies, Visvesvaraya Technological University, for the support and guidance. I would also thank my Institution and my other faculty members without whom this seminar would have been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers.
Lakshman V
SEMINAR REPORT ON
RE-ENTRY OF SPACE VEHICLE
Table of contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... vi 1. Chapter 1 INRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 2 1.1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. RE-ENTRY MOTION ................................................................................................................. 4
LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................... 7 ENTRY CORRIDOR ......................................................................................................................... 12 DECELERATION ............................................................................................................................. 14 AERODYNAMIC HEATING ............................................................................................................. 16 MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................... 19 THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM [TPS] ......................................................................................... 20 7.1. TYPES OF TPS ........................................................................................................................ 21
8.
VEHICLE GUIDANCE AND LANDING .............................................................................................. 26 8.1. 8.2. LIFTING RE-ENTRY................................................................................................................. 28 AEROBRAKING ...................................................................................................................... 30
9. 10.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 32 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Fig 1.1 Apollo capsule re-entry ............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1.1a shows the re-entry coordinate system................................................................................ 5 Fig 1.1b Significant forces on re-entry vehicle. ...................................................................................... 6 Fig 3.1 Figure shows the explanation of re-entry corridor and possible path for vehicle with lift to Venus, Mars, and Titan. ........................................................................................................................ 13 Fig 4.1 Deceleration profiles for re-entry velocities. ............................................................................ 15 Fig 4.2 Deceleration profile for various re-entry flight-path angles..................................................... 15 Fig 5.1 shows the shock wave formed fir blunt and streamlined configurations. ............................... 18 Fig 7.1a Reusable TPS ........................................................................................................................... 22 Fig 7.1b Ablative TPS ............................................................................................................................ 22 Fig7.2a shows different TPS materials on space shuttle. ..................................................................... 24 Fig 7.2b S ectional view of the wing of the space vehicle ................................................................... 25 Fig 8.1a Shows Entry Vehicle evolution................................................................................................ 27 Fig 8.1b Re-entry profile for the space shuttle..................................................................................... 28 Fig 8.2a Aerobraking Concept .............................................................................................................. 30 Fig 8.2b Aerobraking concept and heating shield. ............................................................................... 31
Re-entry of space vehicle

ABSTRACT
Atmospheric re-entry is the movement of human-made or natural objects as they enter the atmosphere of a celestial body from outer space in the case of earth from an altitude above the Karman line, (100 km). This article primarily addresses the process of controlled reentry of vehicles which are intended to reach the planetary surface intact, but the topic also includes uncontrolled (or minimally controlled) cases, such as the intentionally or circumstantially occurring, destructive deorbiting of satellites and the falling back to the planet of space junk" due to orbital decay.
Re-entry capsules promises to launch services, systems will also
intensify
international
competition
in
microgravity research and space technology development. These confer an important strategic advantage in the conduct of
materials and in life science research.
The objective of this paper is to provide a modest degree of understanding of the complex inter-relation which exist between performance requirements mission
constraints , vehicle design and trajectory selection of typical re-entry mission. A brief presentation of the flight regimes, the structural loading and heating environment experienced by both no lifting and lifting re-entry vehicle is given.
Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.
Page 1
Chapter 1 INRODUCTION
The successful exploration of space requires a system that will reliably transport payload such as personnel and instrumental etc. into space and return them back to earth without subjecting them an words, uncomfortable or hazardous environment. In other
the spacecraft and its payloads have to be recovered safely into the earth.
We have seen the re-entry capsules and winged space vehicles approach the earth followed by safe landing. However, this could be accomplished only after considerable research in high speed aerodynamics and after many parametric studies to select the optimum design concept.
Re-entry systems were among the first technologies developed in 1960s for military photo-reconnaissance, life science and manned space flights. By 1970s, it led to the development of new refurbish able space shuttles. Today space technology has developed to space planes which intend to go and come back regularly from earth to space stations. USAs HERMS and Japans HOPE is designed to land at conventional airports. Few significant advances in current proposed re-entry capsules are ballistic designs to reduce development and refurbishable cost, to simplify operations.
For entering into atmospheric and non-atmospheric planet the problems involve is reducing the spacecrafts speed. For an atmospheric planet the problem involves essentially deceleration, aerodynamic heating, control of time & location of landing. For non-atmospheric planets, the problem involves only deceleration and control of time & location of landing.
The vehicle selected to accomplish a re-entry mission incorporates a thick wing , subsonic ( Mach < 1 ) airfoil modified to meet hypersonic (Mach>> 1 )
thermodynamic requirements. The flight mechanics of this vehicle are unique in that rolling manoeuvres are employed during descent such that dynamic loading and aerodynamic heating are held to a minimum.
Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru. Page 2
Therefore re-entry technology requires studies in the following areas: 1. Deceleration 2. Aerodynamic heating & air loads 3. Vehicle stability 4. Thermal Protection Systems 5. Guidance and Landing.
Fig 1.1 Apollo capsule re-entry
Page 3
Re-entry of space vehicle 1.1. RE-ENTRY MOTION
Imagine one of Earths many small, celestial companions wandering through space until it encounters Earths atmosphere at more than 8 km/s, screaming in at a steep angle. Initially, in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, there is very little drag to slow down the massive chunk of rock. But as the meteor penetrates deeper, the drag force builds rapidly, causing it to slow down dramatically. This slowing is like the quick initial deceleration experienced by a rock hitting the surface of a pond. At this point in the meteors trajectory, its heating rate is also highest, so it begins to glow with temperatures hot enough to melt the iron and nickel within. If anything is left of the meteor at this point, it will continue to slow down but at a more leisurely pace. Of course, most meteors burn up completely before reaching our planets surface. The meteors velocity stays nearly constant through the rst ten seconds, when the meteor is still above most of the atmosphere. But things change rapidly over the next ten seconds. The meteor loses almost 90% of its velocity almost likes hitting a wall. With most of its velocity lost, the deceleration is much lowerit takes 20 seconds more to slow down by another 1000 m/s. Of course, unlike the meteor, in establishing a trajectory for a re-entry vehicle, we must keep the vehicle intact. Thus, we must trade deceleration, heating, and accuracy to calculate the correct trajectory for each vehicle. But rst, to understand these trade-offs, we need to understand the motion of re-entering objects. The fundamental plane is the vehicles orbital plane. Within this plane we can pick a convenient principal direction, which points down to Earths center. direction along the local horizontal in the direction of motion. We dene the
Page 4

The direction completes the right-hand rule. However, because we assume all motion takes place in plane, we wont worry about the direction.
Figure 1.1a shows the re-entry coordinate system. We also dene the re-entry ight-path angle, , which is the angle between the local horizontal and the velocity vector. (Note this angle is the same as the orbital ight-path angle, , used earlier, but re-entry analysts like to use gamma, , instead, so we play along.) Similar to , a re-entry ight-path angle below the horizon (diving toward the ground) is negative, and a ight-path angle above the horizon (climbing) is positive. To truly understand the motion of a re-entering Shuttle, we have to start by listing what forces might affect it. After a bit of thought, we could come up with the following short list of forces to worry about: The force of gravity The force of drag The force of lift

Other forces just in case
Fig 1.1b Significant forces on re-entry vehicle. Drag is a force that resists motion through the atmosphere. If you were to put your hand out the window of a fast-moving car and turn your palm into the wind, you'd feel the force of drag pushing back on your hand. The drag force acts in the direction opposite to your motion. Lift is a force produced at a right angle to the direction of motion as a result of air moving over an object's surface. An object with the correct shape, such as an airplane's wing, will generate enough lift force to overcome the force of gravity and lift it into the air. For Shuttles, meteors, and ICBMs entering the atmosphere at near orbital velocities, it turns out that: The re-entry vehicle is a point mass Drag is the dominant forceall other forces, including lift and gravity, are insignicant.
Page 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the study was to investigate and present an overview of reentry vehicle systems and to identify differences in mission requirements and operations. This includes reentry vehicles system background, system design considerations, description of past/present/future reentry systems, and hazards associated with reentry vehicles that attain orbit, reenter, and are recovered. A general literature search that included the OCST data base, NASA, Air Force, and other technical libraries and personal contact with various government or private industry organizations knowledgeable in reentry system vehicles was performed. A reference page is provided at the end of this report. The following sections provide more detailed information on reentry system vehicles. A. Background - The development of reentry vehicles began in the late 1950's due to the need for Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency photo reconnaissance of Soviet ICBM sites. NASA has also been involved in the use of reentry vehicles since the early 1960's, including manned space programs Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. The following sections describe the evolution of reentry system development in the United States and foreign countries: 1. Discoverer1 - The Discoverer program was of major importance because it provided a vehicle for testing orbital maneuvering capability and reentry techniques and it played a large role in enabling the first United States manned space flights to be conducted in Project Mercury. This program also advanced technology required for the development of the surveillance satellites used later by the Department of Defense. Between 1959 and 1962, there were 38 launches conducted at Vandenberg Air Force Base by the US Air Force. The final three missions all had similar ejection capsules and were typical of many other missions. After 1962, this type of work was classified. The purpose of these missions was to provide military space research, develop reentry capsule recovery techniques, and perform biological research. The Discoverer was built by General Electric and launched aboard a modified Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). It was boosted into orbit by a second stage Agena A or B rocket. Once there, gas-jet thrusters oriented the vehicle so that the reentry capsule could deorbit. After the orbital portion of the mission was completed, ejection of the capsule from the nosecone was accomplished and retrorockets were fired to

initiate reentry. After reentry into the atmosphere, and while descending over the recovery site, a parachute pulled the capsule away from its heat shield, which fell into the Pacific Ocean. See Figures 1 and 22. The recovery capsule was then either retrieved by ship after impact in the ocean or, in several cases, air-snatched while descending by C-119 transport aircraft. The final three Discoverer missions all had similar ejection capsules and were typical of many other missions. The orbiting vehicle, which included the Agena second stage and reentry capsule, was 7.62 meters long and 152.4 cm in diameter. The bowl-shaped capsule was 84 cm in diameter, 68.6 cm in depth, and weighed approximately 227 kg. The Discoverer program, up to the final unclassified mission on February 27, 1962, resulted in 38 launches attempted, 26 spacecraft orbited, 23 attempted capsule recoveries, 8 successful air recoveries, and 4 successful sea recoveries. Two of the Discoverer missions did not contain reentry capsules. On November 22, 1961, the Department of Defense mandated that all military spacecraft launches would be classified. The Tables of Earth Satellites, compiled by Britain's Royal Aircraft Establishment, shows that 27 capsules were placed into orbit between 1963 and 1971, designated only as the vehicles on which they were launched (AtlasAgena's B and D, Thor-Agena & Titan-Agena)
2. Biosatellite1,4 - This late 1960's NASA program, directed by Ames Research Center and built by General Electric, was intended to study the prolonged effects of weightlessness and radioactivity on living organisms. The agency planned six Biosatellite flights: the first two with plants and organisms, the second two with monkeys, and the third pair with rodents. The program was suspended after the third flight. 3. DOD Satellite Film Canister Reentry Systems1 Beginning in the early 1960's the Air Force and the CIA began using reentry capsules to retrieve reconnaissance film from satellites. The project was conducted under the code name "Keyhole" and successive satellite generations were given numbers that are still in use. The early programs, Close Look and Area Survey, ran concurrently from 1962 until 1984 with over 250 missions to their credit. These programs were slowly phased out and used as fillers with the advent of Big Bird in 1972. Big Bird (KH9 Hexagon) was also known as LASP (Low Altitude Surveillance Platform) and provided US intelligence with a multitude of data. The final Big Bird was

destroyed in the Titan failure at Vandenberg AFB in 1986. The LASP had a mass of over 11,000 kg in orbit and was 15.2 meters long and 3 meters in diameter. It deployed two large solar arrays and a six meter antenna and carried four to six pods used to return exposed film. The Titan 3D was specially developed as the launcher. The earlier Area Survey and LASP satellites had both radio transmitting (for area survey pictures) and reentry pod capability (for close-look capability). As technology has advanced, imaging systems have developed to an extent that they can perform the close-look function, eliminating the need for film returns. 4. Current US and Foreign Reentry Vehicle Concepts/Programs5 - US and foreign entities are increasing research and development of new reentry systems. Stanford University researchers have identified reentry capsule services as one of the fastest growing international aerospace markets in the 1990's. Estimates of the US market alone yield an average yearly growth of nearly 50% during the next five years, with 4-5 flights/year projected by 1995. Equal growth is anticipated in Europe and Japan. Most of the current reentry systems being researched and developed (domestic and foreign) are using technology from the 1960's. Though heat shield materials and spacecraft subsystems have been improved, the basic design remains the same. Most of the current and proposed capsules are ballistic in design to simplify mission operations. a. Germany - Germany has vigorously pursued reentry capsule studies of 10-15 separate concepts during 1986-1990. Presently, the EXPRESS (Experiment Return Service from Space) is under study. German experiments have flown on Chinese and Soviet capsules and are planned for additional flights over the next two years. Recent German studies have tended to larger capsules (over 800 kg) to accommodate a wide range of microgravity payloads. However, German industry and space agency management appear close to reaching a consensus that an initial capsule should employ smaller Western launchers in early missions. b. Italy - Italian interest in reentry systems dates back to 1987-1988 and has focused on small capsule options for available Western ELV's. Technical efforts by Aeritalia and support from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) are enabling Italy to develop technology for reentry systems. ASI support for reentry system technology has resulted in an extensive definition and preliminary design study of the Carina capsule. c. France - France has not pursued reentry capsules as aggressively as Germany and Italy. Preoccupation with the major European programs (Hermes, Ariane 5), less emphasis on

microgravity science within the French space effort and a solid domestic military reentry technology base have all contributed to placing a lower priority on reentry capsules. Instead, concepts proposed have been driven by a desire to fill secondary payload capacity on Ariane boosters. France is currently working with Germany to develop a large Apollo-type capsule (1,812 2,600 kg) for Ariane 4/5 and has completed a concept definition study. The Micro liner, a Discoverer-type capsule flown to geosynchronous orbit, has also been proposed as an Ariane 4 secondary payload. d. Great Britain - The British have a strong reentry technology base achieved during 19601980 through the development and operation of strategic weapons systems. During 19881989, British Aerospace proposed the Multi-Role Capsule (MRC) concept, which is a semiballistic configuration that can be adapted for manned ascent or rescue, or unmanned microgravity science missions. Work on the MRC was initiated to compete for the NASA Space Station crew rescue vehicle (ACRV) but it was not selected. e. Japan - Japanese government and industry have targeted reentry capsules as a strategic technology for development during the early 1990's. The National Space and Development Agency (NASDA) and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) agencies, with Nissan, Marubeni, Mitsubishi, and other industrial and trading companies, are closely monitoring US, German, and Italian capsule R&D programs. In addition, NASDA is sponsoring the domestic development of a small experimental capsule to collect reentry data in support of their manned spacecraft project. This capsule is scheduled to fly as a piggyback payload in 1993 on Japan's two-stage heavy launch vehicle, the H-2. f. Soviet Union - The Soviet Union's hard currency requirements have pushed Glavkosmos, the Photon Design Bureau and Soyuz Karta to rapidly commercialize and market services in the West. An aggressive booster and services pricing policy, reliable technology and a wide range of services and systems have generated important successes, most notably in Germany; Kayser-Threde and into space changed suppliers to fly the Cosima-2 protein crystal experiment in September, 1989, on the Recurs-F. A good ground infrastructure capable of supporting Western scientists' laboratory, communications, and data requirements

complements the on-orbit service during the pre-launch and post-recovery phases. The Soviet Union has implemented incremental improvements in flight-proven systems flown for manned and military photo-reconnaissance missions. The original Vostok spherical module has been adapted for use as Photon, Recurs-F, and the life sciences Bio cosmos capsules. Glavkosmos recently announced that its improved Nika reentry vehicle, outfitted with solar panels for long duration flights, is slated for commercial introduction in 1993-1994. Outside the commercial realm, NASA and Soviet scientists continue to cooperate on joint Bio cosmos biosatellite missions under the Joint US/USSR Biological Satellite Program started in 1975. Since this began, American space biologists have participated in seven missions covering biological and radiation physics experiments. An additional flight is expected in 1991 under current agreements. g. China - The Chinese Academy of Space Technology (CAST) undertook development of domestic reentry system technology in the early 1970's in support of military photoreconnaissance and earth resources missions. The first capsule flew in 1975 and has since flown over 10 missions with land recoveries in central China. The China Great Wall Industry Corporation has shown interest in reentry system technology and has flown two microgravity experiments for Marta space of France in August of 1987. h. United States - Presently, in the United States, two NASA-sponsored reentry capsule programs are expected during the 1990's. First, the NASA Office of Commercial Programs, CCDS (Centers for Commercial Development of Space), Center for Aerospace Research, issued Requests for Proposals for the Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) Flight Program in the summer of 1990. The COMET program is designed to be the first US space system to be launched, controlled, and recovered by the commercial sector. This universitymanaged program plans one launch a year for three to five years. Payloads will range between 20 and 120 kg, with 15-30 days mission duration.
Page 11
Re-entry of space vehicle 3. ENTRY CORRIDOR

An entry corridor is a range of entry conditions within which an entry is possible. The undershoot boundary and overshoot boundary forms the upper and the lower limits of the entry corridor. Terrestrial flights are tolerant of guidance error accompanying a landing approach. An undershoot may cause destruction of vehicle during entry and an undershoot may result in a homeless exit to space. If the guidance error results in an excessive undershoot as shown by the two dashed trajectories, the vehicle will enter the atmosphere at an excessively steep angle, thereby experiencing too much deceleration. If the guidance error results in an excessive overshoot as shown by the two outer dashed trajectories, the vehicle will not slow down considerably in order to complete entry in a single pass. Hence the shaded portions representing excessively overshoot and undershoot are excluded as not representing the intended entry maneuver.
Overshoot passage was considered a good way to came back from moon or more distant planets. Each pass through the atmosphere would slow down the vehicle a little , so that it would return in a series of successively shorter ellipses. In this way the heat problem would be solved, heat taken on each approach being radiated during the next outward journey.
When either truly circular entry is made inside entry corridor or final entry is made through multipass scheme, the descent trajectory through the atmosphere is similar to entry from a satellite orbit, namely ballistic path, glide path or slip path.
Page 12
Fig3.1
Figure shows the explanation of re-entry corridor and possible path for vehicle with lift to Venus, Mars, and Titan.
Page 13
4. DECELERATION
When too much deceleration is intolerable, aerodynamic lift must be used. Lift can reduce rate of descent, thus lengthening the path to the ground and decreasing the maximum deceleration. Before entering to the atmosphere, the motion of a vehicle is governed by its own inertia and its gravitational force. When the vehicle enters the atmosphere the gas dynamic force modify such motion. Gas dynamic force acts in a direction opposite to the vehicle motion.
As the vehicle approaches the planet, it first encounters an atmosphere of very low density, as it goes deeper and deeper density of the atmosphere increases rapidly and velocity begin to decrease due to drag. The deceleration force is the product of two quantities, one increasing and the other decreasing. Initially deceleration increases and at some point of velocity begins to decrease more rapidly than the density increase, resulting in a minimum deceleration with subsequent decreasing acceleration. Figure shows the changes during re-entry.
When the spacecraft has lost most of its speed, it falls freely through air. Parachutes slow it further down and a small rocket is fired in the final seconds of descent to soften the impact of landing. For approach to non-atmospheric planets, the absence of aerodynamic lift and drag necessitates the use of reverse thrust rockets to slow down the vehicle for safe landing. Because of the absence of atmosphere, there is no problem of aerodynamic heating. Programming of rocket thrust is desired for best controlling the time and location of landing.
Deceleration builds gradually to some maximum value, upto maximum accerlation, and then begins to taper off because deceleration depends on the re-entry flight path angles and reentry velocities and it is explain detail below.
Page 14
Fig 4.1 Deceleration profiles for re-entry velocities. Above graph indicates that for higher velocities maximum deceleration and this reduces flight from attaining high temperature due atmospheric drag in outer space.
Fig 4.2 Deceleration profile for various re-entry flight-path angles. For a given velocity, the higher the re-entry ight-path angle (steeper the re-entry) the greater the maximum deceleration experienced.
Page 15
5. AERODYNAMIC HEATING
The major concern of re-entry is to find a way to survive the aerodynamic heating. This obstacle was named as the Thermal Barrier. A vehicle approaching the earth or a planetary atmosphere from space or from orbit possesses a large amount of kinetic energy due to its speed and potential energy by virtue of its position. These energies have to be dissipated and converted into heat to decelerate the vehicle to zero velocity and altitude.
At high speed associated with re-entering from space, air cannot flow out of the way of the on rushing spacecraft fast enough. When the vehicle encounters the atmosphere a shock will from ahead of the nose of the vehicle heating the atmosphere in this region to a very high temperature. As the vehicle plunges into deeper and denser atmosphere the vehicle will increasingly be heated by the enveloping layer of incandescent atmosphere, while the speed of the vehicle will continuously be reduced by the braking force of the atmosphere. In this manner the vehicles kinetic energy is converted into heat. If the entire vehicles energy were converted to heat within the vehicle itself, it would be more than enough to vaporize the vehicle.
There are two ways in which the total energy is dissipated from the vehicle. They are: i. By waves unloading major part of the heat on the atmosphere by the shock waves. ii. To radiate heat away from hot surface of the vehicle.
Page 16

The diversion of heat by strong shock waves is the result of molecular interaction in the gas around the vehicle. When molecules strike the forward surface they bounce back. Many of the rebounding particles collide with the oncoming molecules diverting them from the surface and preventing them by heating it by direct impact.
A blunt nose produces the strongest shock wave. Since the fraction of the total heat load that is transferred is directly proportional to the strength of the shock waves the stronger the shock wave, the smaller the frictional component introduced into the body. For the reason, the entry vehicle is given a blunt shape rather than a streamlined configuration that has been elastic solution to aerodynamic heating at lower speed.
Thus, one or more of the following methods can disperse the heat reaching the vehicle: a. Making skin material thick enough to act as a sink. b. Radiation cooled shield with a thin metal skin and negligible heat sink capacity may be used. Here the sink temperature in radiation equilibrium situation must not exceed the heat capacity of the metal. c. To use a heat shield constructed of inoculated layer of fiberglass and similar materials. Under intense heat the outer layer of the shield chars melts and vaporizes (Ablation).
Another mode of radiating heat is by undergoing multiple passes through the atmosphere; heat developed on each approach is radiated away in the next loop. Insulating plates of quartz fiber glued to skin creates a heat shield that protects against fierce heat. Strength of shock wave determines the heat and drag applied directly to the vehicle by air friction. Slender shape creates weak shock wave and therefore a heavy frictional layer. Blunt has strong shock and little friction.
Page 17
Fig 5.1 shows the shock wave formed fir blunt and streamlined configurations.
Page 18
6. MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS

The prime requirements during the selection of materials is for minimizing the mass which can achieve its goals during the dynamic loading with which it is presented during the testing and launching phases and finally in zero gravity operational environment. The selection of appropriate material for an application requires knowledge of the way each property can best be used and where each limitation must be recognized. Selection can encompass the following: Specific strength Stiffness Stress concentration resistance Fracture and fatigue resistance Thermal parameters Ease of manufacture modification. The materials usually used for the space vehicle structures are Aluminum alloy, Magnesium alloy, Titanium alloy, Beryllium alloy, ferrous alloy, Stainless Steel and composite materials. These alloys are probably made on the basis of maximum allowable temperature limit. Hollow and reduced section structural members such as tube and beams can exhibit stiffness characteristics compared with solid bars. Honey comb sections may be used to create panels with extremely low weight with very high stiffness. The property of honey comb panel is that the weight per unit moment of inertia is proportional to the thickness of the face times the density of material. Nickel alloy, Titanium and Aluminum are the three probable candidates for a re-entry vehicle structure.
Page 19
7. THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM [TPS]

Thermal protection system is of considerable importance in system studies. The principal type of systems used depends on either or both of the essential properties.
Absorption of the heat by the surface materials by the temperature rise, phase change or chemical change. Rejection of heat by mass efflux from the surface and or radiation. These take the following five forms.
i. Radiate, cooling from the surface of insulating materials supported on relatively cool and convectional structures. ii. Transpiration cooling iii. Use of vehicle structure as heat sink iv. Ablative cooling materials supported on insulation v. Radiative cooling for high temperature structural materials.
The simplest and lightest weight is scheme-C. The techniques by which the primary structure is protected from thermal environment is a radiation cooled outer surface which is backed by a light weight high temperature insulating material.
The main advantages of this scheme are: 1. Under ordinary conditions the entry system should have multimission capability. The outer shield will not ablate under normal conditions and thus keep the structure relatively cooled. 2. In the event of failure, such an error in the entry angle or entry from an aborted flight occurs and results in a slower thermal environment, the insulation exhibits ablating characteristics and absorbs sufficient amount of heat to protect the structure.
Page 20

Scheme-A shows the combinations thick skin and radiation cooling in which radiations as well as sandwiches by low density thermal conductive material cooling structure. Scheme-B shows transpiration cooling system which consists of a porous structure. It is equipped with a fluid supply where the fluid reaches the top of the structural surface by capillary action and thus keeps the surface cool. Scheme-C illustrates the ablative insulating system in which the ablative coating melts and vaporizes due to high temperature thus saving the structure from melting. Scheme-D is known as the non-ablative system. The outer surface of this insulating system is a material with good high temperature properties. The outer surface is under with one of the two low density conductivity product internal insulating materials. The outer of the two insulations has somewhat higher values of but has better higher temperature resistance. The thermal gradient through the outer layer of internal insulation allows the lower insulation to operate with its temperature limits. The composite system has been tested with interface up to 1000F with good results.
7.1.
TYPES OF TPS
1. REUSABLE TPS 2. ABLATIVE TPS
REUSABLE TPS
Characteristics of reusable TPS is seen that radiative and convective heating resulting a significant amount of energy being re-radiated to from the heated surface with remainder conducted into the TPS material. No change in the mass and properties of materials after exposure to entry atmosphere.
Page 21
Fig 7.1a Reusable TPS
ABLATIVE TPS
Fig 7.1b Ablative TPS
Page 22

ABLATIVE TPS
The characteristics of ablative TPS materials are illustrated in Fig 5.1.2 and most ablative TPS materials are reinforced composites employing organic resins as binders. When heated the resin pyrolyzes producing gaseous products that percolate toward heated surface and are injected into the boundary layer. Resin pyrolysis also produces a carbonaceous residue that deposit on the reinforcement. The resulting material surface is termed as char.
The pyrolysis process is typically endothermic and the pyrolysis gases are heated as they percolate towards the surface thus transferring some energy from solid to gas.
Page 23
Fig 7.2 shows different TPS materials on space shuttle.
Among the several heat protection methods the heat sink method employing a high heat capacity metals such as Beryllium Oxide can absorb without significant erosion. For high heating rates the ablation principle provides an efficient heat protection method. In this case, the metal is allowed to melt and vaporize and hence this thermal protective system is not reusable. Ablative heat shields are often impregnated with carbon fibers, which provides structural reinforcement and form a char layer that radiates heat. Reasonable TPS candidates such as ceramic tiles used for shuttle orbiter or the ceramic shingle/standoff concept developed for HERMES employ radiation cooling. The vertical plane and lateral direction can be modulated to limit the flight loads to compensate for non-nominal entry for guiding the vehicle to a restricted recovery area.
Page 24
Fig 7.2a sectional view of the wing of the space vehicle
Page 25
8. VEHICLE GUIDANCE AND LANDING

Landing is the final stage of re-entry mission. The accuracy requirements of the guidance and control system are largely required for re-entry phase of mission. The guidance system requirements for re-entry are a function of the following.
1. Initial condition errors at the re-entry interface. 2. Initial stable number alignment accuracy. 3. Inertial component accuracy. 4. Guidance equation mechanization. 5. Re-entry requirements.
6. Allowable re-entry dispersion.
Landing phases are different for capsule and winged glide vehicles. In the case of the capsules, most of its speed, it falls freely through air. Parachutes slow it further and small rockets are fired in the final seconds of descent to soften the impact of landing. The oceans are the prime landing areas. Water landing do not require the high precision of landing area. The early US space capsules used the cushioning of water and splashed down into oceans.
The major advantage in the case of winged glide vehicles is the ability to attain the landing site substantially of the orbital plane and to make a horizontal landing. By widening both the entry window and the corridor the entry conditions become less stringent and operational flexibility is highly increased. The cross range capability depends on the L/D properties of the vehicle and the angle control, which simultaneously has to observe the flight path constraints. The maximum lateral range is a primary mission requirement and dictates vehicle angle.
Page 26
The three factors influencing the baseline re-entry trajectory profile of winged vehicle are: 1. Temperature constraints, which primarily affect the vehicle, reuse and reflect specific TPS design. 2. Constraints to guarantee flight stability and system and payload integrity. 3. Down range and Cross range requirements to assure successful landing.
Space shuttle uses their wings to glide to runway and land like an airplane. For landing in non-atmospheric planet reverse thrust rockets are used by the vehicles. Figure given below explains the entry vehicle evolution.
Fig 8.1a Shows Entry Vehicle evolution.
Page 27
Under the guidance and landing process two important processes are explained below: 1 2 Lifting re-entry Aerobraking
8.1.
LIFTING RE-ENTRY
Fig 8.1b Re-entry profile for the space shuttle.
We assumed the force of lift on our re-entering vehicle was zero, so we could more simply investigate the trade-offs between re-entry characteristics. Adding lift to the problem takes it beyond the scope of our simple model but gives us more exibility. For example, we
Page 28

can use the lifting force to stretch the size of the corridor and allow a greater margin of error in re-entry velocity or angle.
Controlling lift also improves accuracy over a strictly ballistic re-entry. We can change the vehicles angle of attack (angle between the vehicles nose and its velocity vector) to improve lift, making the vehicle y more like an airplane than a rock. This allows the pilot or onboard computer to guide the vehicle directly to the desired landing area.
The Space Shuttle is a great example of a lifting-re-entry vehicle. About one hour before landing, re-entry planners send the Shuttle crew the necessary information to do a deorbit burn. This burn changes the Shuttles trajectory to re-enter the atmosphere by establishing a 1 to 2 re-entry ight-path angle. After this maneuver, the Shuttle is on nal approach. Because it has no engines to provide thrust in the atmosphere, it gets only one chance to make a landing! Preparing to hit the atmosphere (just like a skipping stone), the Shuttle rotates its nose to a 40 angle of attack, that means the nose is pitched up 40 with respect to the velocity vector. This high angle of attack exposes its wide, at bottom to the atmosphere. At an altitude of about 122,000 m (400,000 ft.), the re-entry interface takes place. Here the atmosphere begins to be dense enough for the re-entry phase to begin. From this point, more than 6400 km (4000 mi.) from the runway, the Shuttle will land in about 45 minutes! Figure 6.1.1 shows a graph of the Shuttles re-entry prole.
Page 29
8.2.
AEROBRAKING
Fig 8.2a Aerobraking Concept On an interplanetary transfer, the spacecraft approaches the planet on a hyperbolic trajectory (Positive specic mechanical energy with respect to the planet). Du ring aerobraking, it enters the atmosphere at a shallow angle to keep maximum deceleration and heating rate within limits.
Page 30
Drag then reduces its speed enough to capture it into an orbit (now it has negative specic mechanical energy with respect to the planet). To pull out of the atmosphere, it changes its angle of attack, lift. Basically, the vehicle dives into the atmosphere, and then bounces out. In the process it loses so much energy that it is captured into orbit. This atmospheric encounter now leaves the vehicle on an elliptical orbit around the planet. Because periapsis is within the atmosphere, the vehicle would re-enter if it took no other actions. Finally, it completes a single burn, much smaller than needed without the aerobraking to put the vehicle into a circular parking orbit well above the atmosphere.
Fig 8.2b Aerobraking concept and heating shield.
Page 31
9. CONCLUSION
In the design of a practical manned re-entry system, it is necessary to accomplish two things. The first is to bring the entry deceleration down to levels well within the human endurance, and the second is to limit the maximum heating rate and total heat pulse to less than material limits. A method of accomplishing these two goals leads to the following conclusions.
1. Re-entry at high total angle of attack provides a reduction in both maximum heating rate and total heating encountered. 2. Rolling maneuvers at constant total angle of attack are useful in reducing re-entry decelerations and total heating encountered. 3. A light wing loading combined with rolling entry maneuvers and a relatively blunt stagnation region permits a lightweight thermal protection system. 4. It is possible by suitable choice of configurations to obtain a vehicle with desirable aerodynamic characteristics during entry and good subsonic flying qualities for landing. 5. Extremely attractive payload to gross weight ratio of approximately 50% may be obtained in a vehicle of light wing loading if the aerodynamic and structural configurations are properly selected and rolling entry employed.
Page 32
10.
REFERENCES
1. Simpson.T(ED), The Space station. New York: IEEE 1985
2 Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System, by Dennis
Jenkins.
3. Anderson, John, D, Jr: A history of Aerodynamics and its impact on Flying machines. 4. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html. 5. Anderson, John, D, Jr: Aircraft performance and design. 6. Anderson, John, D, Jr: An Introduction to Flight.
Page 33

Sem Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sem Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1.

Name: LAKSHMAN V USN: 1VW11APT04

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 32 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................... 33

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry capsules promises to launch services, systems will also

materials and in life science research.

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Fig 1.1 Apollo capsule re-entry

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle 1.1. RE-ENTRY MOTION

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle 3. ENTRY CORRIDOR

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

6. MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

7. THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM [TPS]

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Fig 7.1a Reusable TPS

Fig 7.1b Ablative TPS

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Fig 7.2 shows different TPS materials on space shuttle.

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Fig 7.2a sectional view of the wing of the space vehicle

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

8. VEHICLE GUIDANCE AND LANDING

6. Allowable re-entry dispersion.

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle

Fig 8.1a Shows Entry Vehicle evolution.

Dept. of Aerospace Propulsion Technology, VTU Bengaluru.

Re-entry of space vehicle