Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-11T08:47:11.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of numerical and experimentaldrag measurement in hypervelocityflow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
I. A. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
K. J. Austin
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Extract

In planning interplanetary missions which involve anaerobraking manoeuvre, it is necessary to makeaccurate predictions of the aerodynamic drag actingon a vehicle during its descent. Of interest to theauthors is the Nasa initiative for exploration ofMars and its atmosphere. The Mars Pathfinder is aprobe that is expected to enter the Martianatmosphere at a relative velocity of approximately7.6 kms-1;. The forebody of this vehicleis based on a 70° blunted cone and is typical ofaerobraking designs.

In this note, a comparison is made between experimentaland numerical techniques for predicting drag inhypervelocity flow. Three different models wereexamined in this study: a 30° sharp cone; an Apolloheat shield; and a Viking heat shield. A relativelysimple analytical result for the drag on a coneprovides a convenient reference for both theexperimental and numerical results. The two heatshields are typical of those used for interplanetaryexploration, such as the Mars Pathfinder. Our aim isto give an example of how computational fluiddynamics can be used in conjunction with experimentsto obtain information about the hypervelocity flowabout re-entry vehicles.

Information

Type
Technical Note
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1996 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Chen, Y.K., Henline, W.D. and Tauber, M.E. Mars Pathfinder trajectory base heating and ablation calculation, J Spacecr Rock, 1995, 32, (2), pp 225230.Google Scholar
2. Park, C. Nonequilibrium Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
3. Miller, C.G. Shock shapes on blunt bodies in hypersonic-hyperve-locity helium, air and CO2 flows, and calibration results in Langely 6-inch expansion tube, NASA TN D-7800, 1975.Google Scholar
4. Smith, A.L. and Mee, D.J. Drag measurements in a hypervelocity expansion tube, lnt J Shock Waves, 1996 (accepted).Google Scholar
5. Tuttle, S.L., Mee, D.J. and Simmons, J.M. Drag measurement at Mach 5 using a stress wave force balance, Exp in Fluids, 1995, 19, pp 336341.Google Scholar
6. Neely, A.J. and Morgan, R.G. The Superorbital Expansion Tube concept, experiment, and analysis, Aeronaut J, March 1994, 98, (973), pp 97105.Google Scholar
7. Johnston, I.A. and Jacobs, P.A. SF2D: A Shock Fitting and Capturing Solver for Two Dimensional Compressible Flows, Dept of MechanicalEngineering, University of Queensland, Technical Report No 6/96, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Quirk, J.J. A contribution to the great Riemann solver debate, lnt J Numer Methods in Fluids, 1994, 18, (6), pp 555574.Google Scholar
9. Johnston, I.A. and Jacobs, P.A. Hypersonic blunt body flows in reacting carbon dioxide, Twelfth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, 1995, 2, pp 807810.Google Scholar
10. Liou, M.-S. and Steffen, C.J. A New flux splitting scheme, J Comp Phys, 1993, 107, pp 2339.Google Scholar
11. Johnston, I.A., A Thermodynamic Model of the Martian Atmosphere for Computational Fluid Dynamics Analyses, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Honours Thesis, 1994.Google Scholar
12. Austin, K.J. and Jacobs, P.A. A Newtonian Solver for Hypersonic Flows, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Technical Report, No 5/96, 1996.Google Scholar
13. Maughmer, M., Ozoroski, L., Straussfogel, D. and Long, L. Validation of engineering methods for predicting hypersonic vehicle control forces and moments, J Guid Contr Dynam, 1993, 16, (4).Google Scholar
14. Anderson, J.D. Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Taylor, G.I. and Maccoll, J.W. The Air Pressure on a Cone Moving at High Speed, Proc Royal Society (London) Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 139, (A8383), 1932, pp 278311.Google Scholar
16. Macrossan, M.N. Hypervelocity flow of dissociating nitrogen downstream of a blunt nose, J Fluid Mech, 1990, 217, 1990, pp 167202.Google Scholar
17. Stalker, R.J. Approximations for non-equilibrium hypervelocity aerodynamics, Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 1989, 21, pp 3760.Google Scholar