Large Supersonic Ballutes: Testing and Applicationsimages.spaceref.com/fiso/2016/062916_Bandeau_Clark/Bandeau-Clark… · Large Supersonic Ballutes: Testing and Applications ... 1.2

Large Supersonic Ballutes: Testing and Applications FISO Telecon 06-29-2016

Dr. Ian Clark, LDSD Principal Investigator Erich Brandeau, Entry Descent and Landing Engineer

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Overview

•  Ballute history •  Parachute deployment device •  Ballutes as SIADs •  Use with high-beta entry vehicles •  Future work

06/29/2016 2

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Trailing Decelerator Development

•  Beginning in 1960’s, NASA and the Air Force began researching and developing trailing decelerators for launch vehicle and entry vehicle recovery

•  Initial concepts focused on simple geometries like cones and spheres and quantifying their aerodynamic performance

•  Later geometries evolved to consider a more structurally optimal shape

06/29/2016 3

a 0 C a Y

-

C

0

$-' c6 t

c6

--

I

0

0

In

rl

Q) L a E e

v, a C

0 0

0 0

00

c 0

0

d

d

c6 9

a C

0 0

h

m

k !

(u

0 0

IC

10 l / d = 1.14 l / d = 2 . 2 6

M = 3.96

l / d = 4 . 4 2

S p h e r e

Figure 6.- Typical sch l ie ren photographs.

l / d = 8.60

L-62-7033

Ref: NASA TN D-1601

Ref: NASA TN D-1601

Ref: NASA L-1075

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Isotensoid Theory •  An engineer at Goodyear (Houtz)

developed a more structurally optimal geometry => Isotensoid

–  Allows for use of thinner gage, and lighter, materials

•  Ideally, isotensoid theory creates a stress state that is equal in both radial and circumferential directions

–  Actual implementation has concentrations due to drag and presence of a burble fence that creates a load concentration

–  Resulting geometry is still relatively low-stress though

•  This trailing isotensoid concept was termed a “ballute” by Goodyear aerospace corporation

06/29/2016 4

Ref: Goodyear Aerospace Corp

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Goodyear Ballute Development

•  Goodyear continued to mature the ballute concept through the decade, largely through Air Force sponsorship

–  Aerodynamic Deployable Decelerator Performance Evaluation Program (ADDPEP)

•  Program covered significant analysis, maturation of materials, supersonic wind tunnel testing, and multiple sounding rocket flights of 5-ft diameter test articles

•  Overall very successful program that matured the concept significantly

06/29/2016 5

Recovery Systems ____________ GOO DYEAR A EROSP ACE "

ADDPEP

J J

J J J jl

J J J

J RS-SS

J

ADDPEP [ree -[l ight deployment sequence Bloetscher, F., “Aerodynamic Deployable Decelerator Performance Evaluation Program, Phase II,” Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Technical Report, AFFDL-TR-67-25, Apr. 1967.

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Aerodynamics

•  Compilation of performance data shows rather consistent performance, though much of it behind slender bodies

•  Qualitative assessment of stability always very favorable

–  Very little motion of the ballute in the wake of a vehicle

06/29/2016 6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CD

Mach

Towline Length 2 ≤ lt/Df < 5 5 ≤ lt/Df < 8

8 ≤ lt/Df < 11 lt/Df = 11 +

!

Leading Body Slender Blunt

Burble Fence No Burble Fence

Recovery Systems __ ___________ AEROSPACE___ GOODYEAR •

PRIME PROGRAM The purpose of tests conducted for The Martin Company under Contract

SA0261 was to establish de sign parameter s for a minimum -weight drogue de-

vice capable of satisfying the performance requirements of the Air Force's

SV -SD PRIME (!'re cis ion ecover y !.ncluding Maneuve rable re -entry

vehicle. Included were a series of te sts in the Arnold Engineering Develop-

ment Center's propulsion wind tunnel, Tullahoma, Tenn., in which Hyperflo

and PARASONIC a parachutes and BALLUTEs a were tested for comparative

performance at various calibers at the after part of the forebody, atvarious

Mach number s, and at dynamic pres sure s behind symmetrical and uns ym-

metrical forebodie s.

One program objective was to evaluate the effects on decelerator perfor-

mance of airflow as a variant withforebody shape, angle of attack, and con-

trol surface activity. These tests produced significant data on decelerator

pe rformance in s ymmetri cal and uns ymmetrical wake s. The uns ymme trical

forebody employed was a full-scale model of the PRIME vehicle.

As a result of its initial work, GAC assumed responsibility for the develop-

ment of the entire recovery system for the PRHvlE vehicle.

PRIME tes t vehi cle and BALLUTE in fl ight attitude

a TM, Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio.

Ref: Goodyear Aerospace Corp

Ref: Smith, B. P., Tanner, C. L., Mahzari, M., Clark, I. G., Braun, R. D., Cheatwood, F. M., “A Historical Review of Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator Technology Development,” IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 2010, IEEEAC Paper #1276.

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Inflation & Deployment

•  Closed, isotensoid design is amenable to pressurization via ram-air

•  Most designs incorporated a number of inlets on the periphery of the ballute for this purpose

–  Early versions were raised to get out of the boundary layer and get higher total pressure air, more recent concepts utilized surface mounted inlets for simplicity

•  Most flight tests also incorporated some sort of inflation aid to provide initial pressurization

–  Exception was a 5.5 m ballute tested by NASA which failed to inflate successfully

06/29/2016 7

SE

BURBLE FENCE

25 (DEC- BC

15 GORf P4 TERl?.

4.50

60.0 DIAM3.R

I BURBLE FENCE AREA

IN E KEEPER RING

14.5

3.4.

20.8271.63

Ref: Nebiker, F. R., “Aerodynamic Deployable Decelerator Performance-Evaluation Program,” Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Technical Report AFFDL-TR-65-27, Aug 1965.

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Additional Usage Examples

•  After initial development, the ballute saw numerous applications as a supersonic decelerator or stabilization device

Examples •  Gemini ejection seat stabilization •  Meteorological Sounding Rocket

Decelerator

•  Proposed as pilot for Mars Viking Mission by Martin Marietta

06/29/2016 8

Recovery Systems _______________ AEROSPACEGOODYEAR •

GEMINI BAllUTE Under Contract 430157 with McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, Goodyear

Aerospace developed and qualified the BALLUTEa system used to stabilize

the Gemini astronauts after high-altitude emergency ejection (7,500 to

79,000 ft). Mach numbers ranged to 1. 92, and dynamic pressures to 180

psf. During an abort event, the BALLUTE would have prevented physio-

logical harm to the astronauts from violent spinning after man and seat had

separated and prior to the inflation of the terminal descent parachute.

a TM , Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio.

Recovery Systems _ _ ______________ GOO DYE A R A ER OS P AC E

J J GEMIN I BALLUTE

J J

J J

J

j)

J RS-61

Sky diver (right) wi th helmet-mounted movie camera pho tographs first l ive tes t jump with Gemini Ballute

Recovery Systems ________________ AEROSPACEGOODYEAR •

METEOROLOGICAL BALLUTES Under Contracts AF19(628)-4194 and AF19(628)-5851 with the USAF Cam-

bridge Research Laboratories, Goodyear Aerospace designed, fabricated,

and tested a BALLUTE a sy s tem to decelerate and stabilize a 7-lb meteoro -

loci gal sounding device in vertical descent. Stability of ± 3 deg and ve l ocities

of less than 300 fps were required within the sampling altitude envelope,

ranging from 200,000 to 100,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) . This prog ram

included the first practical application of extremely low-gage (fractional-

mil) plastic films in BALLUTE construction and the first BALLUTE mis-. 4Slon at Reynolds numbers as low as 4 X 10 .

Typical meteorological BALLUTE i s 12.5 (l in diam eter bUl weighs just over 1 lb

a TM , Goodyear Aerospace Corporation , Akron, Ohio.

Ref: Goodyear Aerospace Corp

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Recent Experience: NASA LDSD ballute

06/29/2016 9

Pre-Decisional for Internal Discussion Purposes Only.

The technical data in this document is controlled under the U.S. Export Regulations, release to foreign persons may require an export authorization.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology

2

Burble fence

Inflation aid

4.4 m

16x gores

Riser

8x 6” tall ram-air inlets

8x flush ram-air inlets (not shown in inflated state)

Inlet support cords

•  Developed as a parachute deployment pilot device

•  Flown at Mach 2.7, 500 Pa in a blunt-body wake

•  Specs: •  Silicone-coated Kevlar

broadcloth •  Pyrotechnic-initiated

methanol inflation aid •  Mortar-deployed •  18 kg mass •  8000 N drag force

•  Heavily relied on analysis, with minimal testing prior to supersonic flight

j p l . n a s a . g o v

LDSD Supersonic Flight Dynamics Test Overview

10 06/29/2016

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Recent Experience: NASA LDSD Supersonic Test:

06/29/2016 11

j p l . n a s a . g o v

After success of LDSD ballute, how can this be infused into a Mars mission? 1.  Parachute deployment (same use as LDSD) 2.  Supersonic decelerator

–  On a heavy robotic mission (4.4m trailing ballute against 6 m attached toroid)

–  Aerodynamic decelerator assisting supersonic retropropulsion (human-scale)

06/29/2016 12

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Ballutes as Parachute Deployment Devices

06/29/2016 13

𝐷↓0 =2√𝑚↓𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦 /𝜋𝐶↓𝐷  (𝑉↓𝐿𝑆↑2 /2𝑞𝑥↓𝐿𝑆  + 1/𝛽↓𝑉  ) 

Preliminary ballute sizing for parachute deployment:

Assumptions: •  Constant deployment

mass •  Constant Cd •  Constant q

Parachute Diameter, m10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Pilo

t Bal

lute

Dia

met

er, m0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5Nominal Inputsq = 800 PaBeta = 50 kg/m2

CD = 0.6

VLS = 45 m/s

Nominal inputs represent typical Mars conditions •  Mach 1.7, 400 Pa parachute deployment •  200 kg/m2 vehicle ballistic coefficient •  38 m/s parachute line stretch velocity

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Parachute Deployment Device (PDD): Mass Comparison

06/29/2016 14

Parachute Diameter, m10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Dep

loym

ent S

yste

m M

ass,

kg

0

20

40

60

80

100MortarNominal PDDPDD, Beta = 50LDSD PDD ModelLDSD PDD ActualMSL PDD ModelMSL Mortar Actual

In order to compare mortars to pilot deployment, we consider the following: •  Parachute mass model, f(D0) •  Ballute mass model, f(D0) •  Mortar mass model, f(meject) •  Pilot ballute model, (previous

chart)

Conclusions: •  Ballute PDD offers mass savings

over parachute mortar •  Parachute mortar has advantage

of single stage system Trade simplicity with mass

j p l . n a s a . g o v

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Dynamic Pressure, kPa

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Mac

h N

umbe

r

SIAD + ChutePilot Ballute + ChuteChute OnlyChute Deployment Box

•  Future Mars landing mission with a ballistic coefficient of 230 kg/m2 and low L/D

–  The trajectory never achieves deployment conditions of the current technology parachutes

•  Need for a supplementary decelerator. We considered “Off the Shelf” tech SIADs on a 4.7 m diameter aeroshell:

–  Trailing ballute (4.4 m LDSD) –  Attached toroid (6 m LDSD)

•  Both SIADs deployed at Mach 3 for a direct comparison

SIADS: Trailing Ballute vs Attached Toroid

06/29/2016 15

j p l . n a s a . g o v

SIADS: Trailing Ballute vs Attached Toroid

Trailing Ballute •  33 kg (4.4 m diameter +

mortar) •  Relatively simple

mechanical interface •  Must share aft section of

entry vehicle with parachute

Attached Toroid •  106 kg (6 m diameter +

gas generators, no cover panels)

•  More complicated mechanical interface

•  Uses relatively empty real estate on back shell

•  Requires thermal protection during hypersonic phase

06/29/2016 16

j p l . n a s a . g o v

0 5 10 15 20 25Dynamic Pressure, kPa

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mac

h N

umbe

r

MSLHigh - CaseMach q Box

•  Without new designs and qualifications, parachutes can’t be used with high (>= 500 kg/m2) ballistic coefficient vehicles

–  Terminal velocity exceeds Mach number limits for parachutes

–  Dynamic pressure is 10x typical

•  This defines what environments the ballute needs to survive

–  Desire capability at Mach 4 and 5 kPa

Ballutes for High Ballistic Coefficient Vehicles

06/29/2016 17

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Ballute Diameter, m0 5 10 15

Req

uire

d D

ecel

erat

ion

Mas

s, kg

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600TotalPropellantBallute System

Ballute-Assisted Supersonic Retropropulsion

Calculated deceleration mass as a function of ballute diameter. Inputs:

–  9 metric ton entry mass, single stage entry, 4 m diameter aeroshell

–  Low L/D (0.24) –  No parachute, fully

propulsive descent –  Ballute is deployed at

Mach 3.5

06/29/2016 18

9.3 m ballute minimizes decelerations mass (50% less decel mass)

4.5 m ballute provides 25% less deceleration mass

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Technology Development

•  Heating –  Drives deployment Mach number –  Current deployment limits from conservative CFD + thermal

model –  Temperature measurements are needed to validate models

•  Fabric Development –  Past ballutes have used lightweight high-temperature fabrics –  LDSD ballute used the lightest Kevlar fabric that was available

within schedule and budget constraints –  LDSD fabric had more than enough strength, but suffered from

low seam efficiencies due to the characteristics of the fabric

•  Ballute Accomodation –  Mechanical configurations should be studied to determine how to

package a ballute and parachute into the aft of the aeroshell

06/29/2016 19

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Summary

•  Ballutes have a lengthy history of providing drag and stability at supersonic conditions

•  LDSD ballute was flown twice successfully –  4.4 m diameter was particularly large for the parachute

deployment

•  Ballutes can offer mass savings when used as a parachute deployment device

•  Ballutes can also be used as supersonic decelerators –  Prior to parachute deployment –  Prior to retropropulsion

06/29/2016 20

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Additional References •  Brandeau et al., “Ballutes for Supersonic Deceleration at Mars,” IEEE Aero March

2016 •  Clark, I. G., Adler, M., Manning, R., “Summary of the First High-Altitude, Supersonic

Flight Dynamics Test for the Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator Project,” 23rd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technol- ogy Conference and Seminar, March 2015, Daytona Beach, FL, AIAA 2015-2100.

•  Tanner, C. L., O’Farrell, C., Gallon, J. G., Clark, I. G., Bose, D. B., Witkowski, A., Woodruff, P., “Pilot Deployment of the LDSD Parachute via a Supersonic Ballute,” 23rd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, March 2015, Daytona Beach, FL, AIAA 2015-2128.

•  Muppidi, S., Van Norman, J. W., O’Farrell, C., Bose, D., Clark, I., “Computational Analysis and Post-Flight Validation of Ballute Aerodynamics,” 23rd AIAA Aerody- namic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, March 2015, Daytona Beach, FL, AIAA 2015- 2116.

•  Alexander, W. C. and Lau, R. A., “State-of-the-Art Study for High-Speed Deceleration and Stabilization Devices,” NASA Contractor Report CR-66141, Sep 1966.

06/29/2016 21

j p l . n a s a . g o v

Acknowledgements

This work was performed as part of the Low Density Supersonic Decelerators project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a

contract with NASA.

06/29/2016 22

jp l .nasa.gov

© 2016 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.