goody ear aerospace

261 Pages·2009·8.13 MB·English

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19660027566 2018-02-02T15:45:49+00:00Z
GOODY E A R A E R O S P A C E
CORPORATION
AKRON 15. OHIO
Copy No. -
STATE-OF- THE-ART STUDY FOR
HIGH-SPEED DECELERATION AND
STABILIZATION DEVICES
GER- 12616 10 September 1966
William C . Alexander Richard A. Lau
Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio
for
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D. C.
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161
ABSTRACT
-
Documented aerodynamic deployable decelerator per
formance data above Mach 1. 0 is presented. The state
of the art of drag and stability characteristics for re-
entry and recovery applications is defined for a wide
range of decelerator configurations. Structural and ma-
terial data and other design information also are pre-
sented. Emphasis is given to presentation of basic aero,
thermal, and structural design data, which points out
basic problem areas and voids in existing technology.
The basic problems and voids include supersonic "buzz-
ing" of towed porous decelerators in the wake of the forebody,
the complete lack of dynamic stability data, and the gen-
eral lack of aerothermal data at speeds above Mach 5. ,i'
GER- 12616
SUMMARY
Available documented supersonic and hypersonic data (thermodynamic, strut:-
tures, and materials) have been surveyed and summarized to indicate the
state of the art of deceleration and stabilization devices.
Supersonic parachutes that have been successfully flight tested indicate a
performance limit of approximately Mach 3. Although parachutes have per-
formed between Mach 3 and 6 in isolated tests, which demonstrates feasibilil:~,
the conclusion cannot be made that they can perform satisfactorily throughout
the supersonic Mach number range during deceleration. During wind tunnel
tests, all parachutes experienced some canopy breathing, even behind payload
bodies of revolution, while operating above Mach 2. 5. Until a basic aerody-
namic supersonic inlet problem, which is further complicated by the payload
complex wake, is solved, the possibility of successful parachute operation a1.
high Mach numbers (above supersonic speed) appears remote.
Inflatable decelerators up to five feet in diameter have been successfully flight
tested up to approximately Mach 3.8 and dynamic pressures up to approxi-
mately 200 psf. Metal cloth decelerators have been tested in the wind tunnel
up to Mach 10 and fabric models up to Mach 6. These nonporous, nearly gas-
tighttowed decelerators were found to be the least sensitive to a forebody wake
and therefore performed in a stable and satisfactory manner.
Materials development programs have resulted in finding lighter weight nylon
and Nomex woven cloths and webbing for a given structural strength. Flexible
coatings also have been developed that not only protect the decelerators frorr
heat but also make a decelerator gas tight at a minimum of weight. Woven
stranded wire metal also has been developed. Large gaps exist in the oper-
ational temperature ranges due to the lack of proved materials. Higher-
strength, more flexible cloths are still needed as well as higher temperature
impermeable coatings.
SUMMARY GER-12616
There is very little experimental or analytical aerodynamic, thermodynamic,
or structural data available in the supersonic and hypersonic speed range. A
general lack of analytical methods exists to describe basic phenomena, includ-
ing lack of aerodynamic data over a range of Reynolds numbers; a complete
lack of quantitative experimental dynamic stability data; and a basic lack of
understanding of a forebody wake flow when influenced by a towed decelerato~.
- iv-
FOREWORD
This report was prepared by Goodyear Aerospace Corporation,
Akron, Ohio, under Contract NASW- 1288 and under the cogni-
zance of J. E. Greene, Office of Advanced Research and Tech-
nology (OART), NASA Headquarters, Washington, Do C.
J. T. McShera, Jr. , Full Scale Divsion, NASA Langley Sta-
tion, Hampton, Va., served as contract technical monitor.
Project engineer was W. C. Alexander; assistant project engi-
neer was R. A. Lau - both from Goodyear Aerospace. Other
contributing personnel from Goodyear Aerospace were F. R.
Nebiker, manager, Recovery Systems Engineering; W. V.
Arnold, assistant manager, Recovery Systems Engineering;
F. Bloetscher, consultant; I. M. Jaremenko, aerodynamic
wakes; H. H. Sheeter, aerodynamic stability; W. W. Sowa,
thermodynamics; J. F. Werner, structures; and P. F. Myers,
materials. The data gathering cut-off date was 1 April 1966.
GER- 12616
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY iii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FOREWORD.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES
Section Title
. . . . . .
I INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. General
. . . . . . . . . . .
-a. Program Objective
-b. Background and Problem Statement. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
-c. Scopeandconstraints.
. . . . . . . . . .
-d. Description of Search
. . . . . . . . . .
-e. Historical Summary
I1 STATE OF THE ART OF AERODYNAMIC DEPLOY-
. . . . . . . . . . . .
ABLEDECELERATORS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. General
. . . .
2. Design and Performance Requirements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Design Concepts
4. Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-a. General
-b. Steady-State Drag of Towed Porous Decel-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
erators
-c. Steady-State Drag of Towed Nonporous De-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
celerators
. . . .
-d. Attached Nonporous Decelerators
. . . . .
-e. Transient and Fluctuating Loads
. . . . . . . . . . .
5. Aerodynamic Stability.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-a. General
. . . . . .
-b. Attached Decelerator System
. . . . . . .
-c. Towed ~e'celeratorS ystem.
. . . . .
-d. Wake Effect on the Decelerator.
1 Preceding page blank
TABLEOFCONTENTS GER-12616
Section Title Page
. . . . . . . . .
6 Aerothermodynamic Loading
a . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. . Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.a General
. . . . . . . . . . . .
-b Ballute and Spheres
.
-c Parachutes
-d . Airmat Cone .. .. . .. .a .. 0. ... .. .. .. . .. . . .
-e . Inflated Skirts (Flares) . . . . . . . . .
-f . Tension Shells . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Materials
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-a General
-b . Textile Yarns and Fibers . . . . . . . .
c . Filament Materials . . . . . . . . . . .
-
-d .. Woven Fabric Mat.er.ial.s .. ... .. .. a. .. a .. . .
e Fabriccoatings
-
-f . Joining Methods . . . . . . . . a . . q
. . .
g . Material Selection and Qualification
.
-h Current Development in Materials . . . .
. . . . . .
-i Future Development in Materials
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN DISCUSSION
1 . System Designs and Logis tics Sequencing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods
. . . . . . .
2 . Design Procedures and Criteria
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-a General
-b . Preliminary Design Procedure for Super-
. . . . . . . . . . .
sonic Decelerator
-c . Available Design Data for Dynamic Deploy-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ment Loads
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATACONFIDENCE
1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Similarity Criteria
3 . Flexibility and Strength . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Surface Texture
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Dynamics
PRESENT HIGH-SPEED RECOVERY TECHNIQUES.
. . . . . . . . .
PROBLEM AREAS. AND VOIDS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 General
TABLE OF CONTENTS GER-12616
Section Title Page
2. Performance Limits . . . 179
a + *
3. Structures and Materials , 182
~
4. Problem Areas and Voids . . . . . . 184
a a
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . .
1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . .
a
3. Structures and Materials , . . . . . . . .
LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix
A BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
1 Study Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Thermal Performance Spectrum . . . . . . . . 8
3 Decelerator Configurations . . . . . . . . 10
4 Miscellaneous Decelerator Concepts . . a . . * 33
. . . .
5 Coefficient of Drag vs Mach Number 37
6 Area Ratio vs Mach Number for Large Supersonic
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parachutes
a
CD vs Area Ratio for Large Supersonic Parachutes
,
Wind-Tunnel Tested C vs Mach Number for Hyperflo
. . . . D . . . . . . . . .
Parachutes , , , a ,
. . . . .
Guide-Surface Parachute CD vs x/d
C
Guide-Surface Parachute C vs Mach Number at
Dc
One Towed Condition (with Minimum C Variation) .
D
C vs Mach Number for Large-Size Ballutes
D
C vs Mach Number for Small-Size Wind-Tunnel Test
D . . . . . . .
Ballutes.
a
.
C vs Mach Number for 80-Deg Cone. ,
D
. .
. .
CD vs x/d for 80-Deg Rigid Cone.
. . . .
Free-Stream Cone Data vs Mach Number
. .
Axial Nose Drag Coefficient vs Mach Number
a
. . . .
Sphere CD vs Mach Number (8-In. Model)
a a
Sphere C vs Mach Number (4-In. Model). . . . .
D
Preceding page blank
,
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS GER-12616
Figure Title Page
.
19 CD vs Mach Number for Sphere behind Flared Body 62
20 C vs Mach Number for Sphere behind Cylindrical
D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Body
C vs Mach-Number for Spheres at Various High
D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reynolds Numbers
. . . . . .
Correlation of Sphere Drag Coefficients.
CD vs Bs for Flared Body . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5-Ft Do Parasonic (Oscillograph - Instantaneous
Load vs Time); See Table XI, Item 14.
a . 0 . . .
5. 5-Ft D Parasonic (Instantaneous C vs Time);
D
0 . . . . - . . . . .
See Table XI, Item 14. O.
4-Ft Do Hyperflo (Instantaneous CD vs Time); See
Table XI, Item 9 . . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . .
3 -Ft Diameter Ballute, Load vs Time (See Table XI,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Item 7)
C vs Mach Number for Cones.
N . . * *
cp vs Mach Number for Cones . . . . . . . . . . a
Drag vs x/d, Hyperflo Model 1 behind Forebody Type I
Drag vs x/d, Hyperflo Model 1 behind Forebody Types
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I and I1
Drag vs Mach Number, Hyperflo Model 2 behind Fore-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
body Type I
Heat Flux and Temperature Distribution on a Sphere
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laminar Flow
Heat Flux and Temperature Distribution on a Sphere
Turbulent Flow. , * . a . . a
Laminar Heat Flux and Temperature Distribution on a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Blunted Cone.