1 Aerobraking and Impact Attenuation

Edited by:

Mark Fischer
Spring 1995

Previous Editors:

Bill Engblom
Mustafa S. Khan
Walter L. Monguel

Orginal Authors:

Rick Robinson
James Pei
Eric Hammer

1
1.1 Aerobraking

Aerobraking, also known as aeroassisted orbit transfer, is the process by which

aerodynamic forces, exerted by an atmosphere on a spacecraft change its orbit. The
idea is that the kinetic energy of the vehicle as it enters the atmosphere is converted
into heat. The heating is caused by friction due to the atmosphere and thus the
kinetic energy of the vehicle is reduced the main advantage of using aerobraking is
that an orbital plane change can be achieved using far less energy than that needed
for an all propulsive maneuver outside the atmosphere. However the
disadvantage is that the orbital transfer can only be done from higher energy orbits
to lower energy orbits, since the forces exerted on the vehicle dissipate its orbital
energy. So to go from lower energy orbits to higher, propulsive maneuvers art the
only possible way at present. It is also important to note that aerobraking alone is
not usually sufficient for a desired orbital transfer and that a combination of
aerobraking and small propulsive maneuvers is needed Still a combination of the
two is far more energy efficient than propulsion alone. A list of possible
aerobraking scenarios is given in Table 1.1.1:

Earth: - Geosynchronous (GEO) to Low Earth Orbit (IEO) transfer

- Lunar orbit to Low Earth Orbit (IEO)
- Interplanetary capture

Mars: - High Mars Orbit (HMO) to Low Mars Orbit (LMO) transfer
- Phobos to Low Mars Orbit Transfer
- Interplanetary Capture

Table 1.1.1 Aerobraking Scenarios

At this point it is necessary to point out the difference between aerocapture vehicles
(interplanetary capture) and reentry vehicles. Namely the Lift to Drag ratio (L/D)
involved For aerocapture vehicles the L/D is usually low since the cross range of the
vehicle is not as important as the drag needed to put it into the desired parking
orbit. For reentry vehicles the L/D is usually higher so as to be able to provide large
cross range which ultimately leads to mom control of the vehicle and greater
accuracy in landing. This report discusses methods of interplanetary capture and
gives two examples of aerocapture vehicles. It also includes a brief discussion on
reentry vehicles namely the Apollo Command Module and the Space Shuttle.

Aerobraking has been of scientific interest since the 1960's. However recently it has
received much more attention due to its inherent propellant savings which in ton
reduces costs. NASA's Aeroassist Flight Experiment (AFE) - due to By in 1995, will
show that a transfer from Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) to Low Earth Orbit(LEO) can
be accomplished with current technology. Unfortunately aerobraking has seldom
been used in actual missions to date since there are some major technological

2
barriers that need to be overcome before it can be used safely. A brief discussion of
these technological barriers is given in the final section.

1.1.1 Methods of Interplanetary Capture

1.1.1.1 Single Pass Aerocapture

This method requires that the spacecraft pass deep into the atmosphere of the target
planet on its hyperbolic trajectory. This dissipates the vehicle's hyperbolic excess
velocity thereby causing the vehicle to exit the atmosphere with a reduced velocity.
Then small propulsive burns put tile spacecraft into the desired paring orbit around
the planet. In this way minimum propellant is used

Since the vehicle passes deep into the planet's atmosphere it's aerodynamic shape
must be smooth. An example of an aerocapture vehicle and its trajectory are given
in Figure 1.1.1. In general most studies have proved the bent biconic as the most
popular choice.

3
 Hyperbolic
Approach

Limit of
Planetary
Circularization Atmosphere's
Burn Free-molecule

4 Aeroshel
Parking Orbit
Figure 1.1.1 Aerocapture trajectory and configuration (bent biconic)

A hypersonic L/D in the 1 to 1.5 range satisfies the flight control requirements, and
trajectory shaping is done with "bank angle modulation." Aerobraking TPS may
comprise about 15-20% of the atmospheric entry mass. There are sane drawbacks to
the single pass method. Firstly, due to the high temperatures caused by atmospheric
friction an ablative thermal protective system (TPS) must be used. The entire
spacecraft must be enclosed in the TPS and an active cooling system is required.
Since the TPS is ablative it is nonreusable and thus may prove to be quite expensive
for a reusable vehicle. Secondly the guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) is
very complex since there is only one pass and it must world perfectly. Third, the
atmosphere of the target planet must be known accurately which is not always
possible.

The strength of this method is that a single pass means a desired parking orbit can be
achieved in a shut amount of tune.

Inflatable Ballute - An Example of Single Pass [Walberg 1982, pg. 15]

This method involves a ballute that surrounds the entire spacecraft. When inflated
an ellipsoidal nosed shape is produced with the rocket nozzle at the apex.

Interaction flows
caused by Rocket
Plume

Spacecraf
Ballut

Figure 1.1.2 Inflatable ballute

During the atmospheric pass the rocket engine is fired forwards at a reduced thrust
level producing a thick shock layer with a large separation region near the rocket
nozzle.

5
There are several advantages of this vehicle. First of all the amount of drag is
dependent upon the thrust level of the rocket engine and thus provides a highly
controlled aerobraking scenario. Secondly the forward firing engine provides a
relatively low enthalpy exhaust plume and so reduces the aerodynamic heating to
the ballute allowing it to be made from low temperature materials like Kevlar.
Thirdly the ballute is an extremely light weight aerobrake system and being
deployed means it can occupy less volume for launch.

However serious disadvantages are that firstly the ballute is non-reusable and must
be replaced after every mission, and secondly that a lot of propellant is required but
still less titan that for an exo-atmospheric propulsive maneuver. Also tile flutter
effects of the rocket plume may damage and tear the ballute, in which case the
vehicle is lost.

1.1.1.2 Multipass Aerocapture

This method requires Chat tile spacecraft approaching on its hyperbolic trajectory
execute a retrothrust maneuver at the appropriate altitude above the target planet so
as to put it into a highly eccentric elliptical orbit around it. The point where the
propulsive maneuver is executed becomes the periapsis of the orbit and if done
properly should be slightly above the free molecule regime of the planet's
atmosphere. When the aft reaches the apoapsis of its orbit a small bum is done such
that the new periapsis reached will be just within the sensible atmosphere and thus
aerobraking occurs.

The cycle of adjusting periapsis at apoapsis and aerobraking at periapsis is repeated

until the desired parking orbit is achieved It is important that the periapsis be kept
high enough so that excessive heating does not occur. By using this method a
spacecraft can "feel its ways into an unknown atmosphere by measuring
decelerations and adjusting periapsis positions accordingly.

For multipass aerocapture propellant is only used for the initial burn to bring the
vehicle from its hyperbolic traduce to the highly eccentric elliptical orbit and for a
series of small bums for periapsis adjustment. The total amount of propellant used
is still far less than that needed for an exo-atmospheric propulsive maneuver since
the primary means of reducing the eccentricity of the orbit is aerobraking. The
shape of this type of aerobraking vehicle is shown in Figure 1.1.3. It is comprised of
a large blunt aerobrake (i.e. low ballistic coefficient) and a low hypersonic L/D
ranging from 0.2 to 0.3. [Walberg 1987. Generally about 15% of the atmospheric
entry mass is needed for the aerobrake TPS and drag brake [Menees 1985].

***Scanned Image Here***

Figure 1.1.3 Multipass Baking trajectory and configuration

6
The advantages of this method are that firstly since the temperatures due to
aerodynamic friction are not as high as in the single pass method the aerobrake can
be made of metallic, ceramic or carbonaceous material that will survive numerous
atmospheric passes. Secondly the parasol like structure is deployable and retractable
so it can occupy less volume. Thirdly since only the front end needs to be enclosed
in the TPS passive cooling is sufficient. The GN&C are not as complex as the single
pass method because the spacecraft can adapt to the atmosphere during each pass.
Also the atmosphere need not be known to great accuracy. The most important
advantage is that since it is a much more controlled method it is much safer than
the single pass.

Unfortunately one disadvantage of this method is that it takes a long time to reach
the desired parking orbit.

The Lifting Brake - Example of Multipass Aerobrake [Walberg 1982, pg. 17]

This vehicle is aerodynamically similar in shape to the Apollo Command Module.

It is blunt with a large nose radius and an offset center of gravity that gives an L/D of
0.25. The brake itself is deployable and is best described as being similar to a
wrapped-rib antenna (see Fig. 1.4) The shape gives a low ballistic coefficient
(B=m/CDA). This is achieved by having a high coefficient of drag, CD

***Scanned Image***

Figure 1.1.4 Lifting brake

There are some major advantages using this method, firstly it is reusable unlike the
ballute. Secondly the large drag area means that Jibing maneuvers can be done at
high altitudes with low heating rates thus allowing relatively low temperature
materials with the drag brace. Thirdly because the aerodynamics are similar to that
of the Apollo Command Modules there is a lot of available data and experience.

1.1.2 Reentry Vehicles and TPS

The Apollo Command Module and Space Shuttle provide examples of successful
reentry vehicles. The Apollo Command Module reenters the earth's atmosphere at
36,175 ft/s. The Space Shuttle reenters at about 24500 ft/s. The substantial difference
in velocity leads to an ablative TPS for the Apollo Command Module. The Shuttles
lower velocity permits the use of non-ablative insulating materials for a TPS. The
TPS constituents of the two spacecraft are given below:

Components of Apollo TPS: [NASA 1972]

Inner Layer: Brazed, Stainless Steel Honeycomb

7
Outer Layer: Phenolic Epoxy Resin (ablative bilabial)

To prevent permanent damage and to overcome problems of dealing with an

extremely hot vehicle the Apollo Command Module landed in the ocean. Not only
did this provide a good impact surface but also acted as a good way of dissipating the
heat of the vehicle caused by reentry.

Insulation Temperature Area Mass

limits m 2 (ft2 ) kg (lb)

Coated Reinforced Carbon-Carbon > 1,533 K 38 (409) 1,371 (3,023)

High-Temperature Reusable Surface 900 - 1,000 K 477 (5,134) 3,826 (8,434)

Insulation Grilles
- made of low-density, high Purim
silica fiber insulator
- tiles bonded to pad of Nomex fiber,
then bonded to Shuttle

Low-Temperature Reusable Surface 640 - 900 K 268 (2,881) 917 (2,022)

Insulation Tiles
- same material as High-
Temperature, except white
pigment is used for low solar
absorptance

Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation < 640 K 319 (3,436) 499 (1,099)
- made of Nomex felt coated with
silicone elastomeric film

Miscellaneous 632 (1394)

1,102 (11,860) 7,245 (15,972)

Total

Table 1.1.2 Components of Space Shuttle Orbiter TPS [NASA]

After landing the Shuttle is connected immediately to trucks that act as heat
exchangers. Hoses from these trucks pump coolant through the Shuttle and thereby
cool it down. The reason this is done so soon after landing is to prevent permanent
damage to the heat resistant tiles of the TPS. The tiles work well because on reentry
heat is transferred very slowly through the tiles and so protect the vehicle until it
has landed. However since heat is absorbed SO slowly it is dissipated as slowly and
therefore forced cooling is necessary.

8
1.1.1.3 Design Considerations

Whether for reentry or Recapture vehicles the first and most important
consideration is the constitution of the planetary atmosphere. The density and
composition must be known accurately and this will decide whether aerobraking
will be used to an effective degree or not. For example aerobraking on Mars would
be extremely difficult since the atmosphere is thin and can only really be effective
very deep. Unfortunately so deep that the chances of hitting mountains and
volcanos are high so a combination of propulsive and aerobraking maneuvers
would be necessary.

Another consideration is the safety of the spacecraft and crew. Clearly in a manned
mission, the single pass method is extremely dangerous, not only due to the intense
heating but also due to the tremendous g-forces involved.

Once a system is decided upon the design must be able to cope with the heat and
structural loads imposed on it. The TPS enclosing the vehicle in the multipass
aerobrake method must be able to withstand any wake effects of the heating.

Lastly it may seem obvious but a trajectory must be planned such that the spawn fl
does not merely skip through the atmosphere otherwise this may lead to complete
loss of the spacecraft A summary of some aerobraking parameters and
considerations are given in Table 1.1.3

Planetary considerations: - Strength of gravitational field

- Atmospheric density and constitution
- Surface features (Mountain ranges, volcanos, etc)

Spacecraft: - Aerodynamic characteristics (Drag coefficient,

hypersonic L/D)
- Structural characteristics (Mass, Cross sectional area
normal to velocity)
- Maximum heating rate Diction SIPS)
- Orbit before atmospheric pass
- Desired orbit after atmospheric pass

Table 1.1.3 Aerobraking Parameters

R. D. Robinson showed that aerobraking is much more effective for missions using
chemical propulsion than for those utilizing gas-core nuclear thermal propulsion
[Robinson 1990]. That study concluded that for Mars missions with a round trip
transfer times of 200 days aerobraking saves approximately 3.5% of the initial LEO

9
mass for the nuclear case, and about 48% for the chemical case. Thus aerobraking is
extremely helpful for a chemically propelled spacecraft but not particularly so for a
nuclear one. The report mentions that a good rule of thumb for the preliminary
analysis of interplanetary multipass aerobraking maneuvers is to assume that the
∆V savings due to aerobraking is 25% of the all-propulsive case. Also if the designer
is considering aerobraking a nuclear vehicle in earth orbit the environmental
danger due to possible failure must be assessed before implementation.

1.1.1.4 Technological Barriers and Conclusion

The major technological barriers to be overcome are firstly the temperature

limitations of the TPS. The TPS ultimately determines the amount of plane change
that can be achieved and at present is fairly limited. Secondly the requirement that
during the interplanetary flight the entire vehicle must be enclosed within the
aeroshell (including RTG power system) complicates the vehicle design
enormously.

In the case of the inflatable ballute the rocket plume interaction with the ballute is
very complex and much more research needs to be done on this before the ballute
method can be implemented. Also more work needs to be done on possible ballute
materials.

The lifting brake requires low heating rates in the wake flows downstream of the
deployable brake. The difficulty here arises from trying to predict these flows and
more than ground tests are needed now for any further development in this axed

Aeroassisted orbit transfer has not been used in actual missions. The methods
discussed earlier are entirely possible with current technology. So why has it not
been accepted and implemented. The answer to this is that aerobraking is extremely
complex in comparison to an exo-atmospheric propulsive maneuver. This
complexity implies a certain degree of increased risk and at present the advantages
do not balance that risk However aerobraking will more than likely be a frequently
used method of orbit transfer in the future.

1.1.1.5 TPS Performance Estimation Routine

The purpose of the TPS (thermal protection system) is to maintain an acceptable

spacecraft structure temperature despite the heat input of reentry or aerobraking.
Typically special materials are employed in the TPS to passively cool and insulate
the vehicle. For example, the ceramic tiles on The orbiter provide excellent
radiative cooling (i.e., high emmisivity) and insulative properties (i.e., low Thermal
conductivity). However, ceramic tiles are limited with respect to peak temperature
(i.e., heat rate). Four example, the Reusable Surface Insulation (RSI) used on the
orbiter belly cannot be used at temperatures above 2300° F. Ablative materials, like

10
those used on the Apollo heat shield, have the added capability of carrying heat
away as the material burns or vaporizes. Note, ablative heat shields can be used
despite large heat rates but are not reusable. It is the use of these TPS materials
which is tile focus of this discussion. Note, active cooling techniques will not be
discussed herein like the use of coolant fluid loops to reduce structural heating.

One of the more difficult and important aspects of spacecraft design lies in accurately
defining the thermal protection system (TPS). The various modes of heat transfer
involved in reentry and aerobraking (e.g., convective heating) are complex and
difficult to model accurately. The phenomenon of ablation is also complicated
However, the viability of a spacecraft design must include an understanding of how
well the TPS will world Consequently, a simplified model has been developed to
make a preliminary assessment of the performance of a given TPS configuration.
Note, the model described herein is meant only to serve as the first step towards an
effective tool in TPS design.

1.1.1.5.1 Program Inputs/Outputs

Inputs to the TPS Performance Routine (see program listing given as Appendix A)
include a trajectory profile, heat shield configuration TPS material data, and step
sizes. Outputs include the performance results: peals skin temperature, peak
bondline (structural) temperature final thickness (ablative only).

The trajectory profile includes an array of values for time, velocity, and freestream
air density during the flight A trajectory program (e.g., PORT) should provide this
data the design of a trajectory for reentry or aerobraking will not be addressed here
but should be a topic of future study. Note, the program reads in the trajectory
profile from an entirely separate data file called TRAJ.dat

The peak structural temperature can occur well after the reentry or aerobraking
phase is completed because it takes time for the heat to "soak" into the structure.
Consequently, a loiter time input has been established to allow for heat soak after
the trajectory has been completed Loiter time is defined herein as the time between
completion of the trajectory and any change in the spacecraft thermal control (e.g.,
attachment of cooling equipment, water impact, etc.). For example, ground crews
connect cooling equipment to the orbiter after landing; so, the loiter time for the
orbiter would be several minuets on the runway. The Apollo capsule would have
no loiter time since its ocean landing prevented heat soak the loiter time input is
considered a part of the trajectory profile input.

It is recommended that this program be used to analyze heat shield configurations

which can be approximated by portions of a hemisphere (e.g., Apollo, Discoverer).
Blunt-cone and winged configurations require a different technique for estimating
convective heat rates than that used h this program. See Corning's "Aerospace
Vehicle Design" for details on how to estimate convective heating for these shapes.
[Corning 1968, pgs. 11:1-11:41]

11
The heat shield configuration inputs must include a nose radius. Also, the user
must indicate the inclination of the surface region being evaluated to the freestream
air. For example, if an angle of 0° is chosen then stagnation point heating
conditions have been assumed. The user chooses 30° to assess a region of the heat
shield surface which is inclined 30° to the incoming air stream. The user must also
supply the surface area being evaluated. Conservatively, one could assume
stagnation heating over the entire surface. In the latter case, the user would choose
0° for the inclination variable (i.e., THETA) and set the surface area (i.e., SA) to the
surface area of the entire shield.

The initial temperature of the TPS must also be indicated. If the spacecraft is being
maintained at some temperature (e.g., pressurized cabin at 70°F) then it might be
assumed that the TPS is at a similar temperature.

A set of material properties must be entered for the TPS including density,
emmisivity, specific heat, and thermal conductivity. The user must indicate that
the material is ablative or non-ablative. If ablative, the temperature of ablation (i.e.,
the temperature at which the material burns) and effective heat of ablation at zero
enthalpy (i.e., the amount of heat it takes to ablate one pound h still air conditions).
If non-ablative, the material temperature limit must be entered Finally, the
thickness of the TPS for the heat shield region under consideration must be entered.
Note, separate input sections have been provided in the program for ablative and
non-ablative materials. These sections currently contain data for the Lockheed LI-
2200 tiles (i.e., the black tiles on the orbiter belly) and Phenolic Nylon (i.e.,
commonly used charring ablator).

If the material temperature limit is violated (non-ablative only) or the TPS

thickness is completely ablated (ablative only), an appropriate warning will be
printed to the screen. The peak skin temperature and bondline temperature will
always be printed to the screen along with the type, thickness (initial and final for
ablative), and initial mass of the TPS section. Note, for an ablative TPS tile final
thickness should provide some margin.

Inputs

Trajectory Data: Time (I)

Velocity (V)
Density (D) -- arrays
Loiter Time (LOIT)
Heat Shield Data: Radius of Nose (RN)
Inclination of Surface to Freestream (DICTA)
Surface Area (SA)
Initial TPS Temperature (IBID)
Bondine Temperature Limit (TBNDLIM)

12
Material Data: Density (D)
Specific Heat (CP)
Emmisivity (E)
Thermal Conductivity (K)
Initial Thickness (OR
Temperature limit (TLIM) - non-ablative only
Temperate of Ablation (TA) ablative only
Effective Heat of Ablation at Zero Enthalpy (I) - ablative only
Mass Efflux Effect (BETA) - ablative only
Step sizes: Thickness Increments (JDIV)
Delta Time (DENT)

Table 1.1.4 Summary of Program Inputs

Outputs

Performance: Peak Temperature of Skin (TSKIN)

Peak Temperature of Bondline (FIEND)
Initial/Final Thickness (I H/ I 1 B E we
Mass of TPS (MASS)

Note: variable name enclosed in parenthesis

Table 1.1.5 Summary of Program Outputs

1.1.1.5.2 Methodology

The Finite-Difference Method was employed to track the temperature distribution

in the TPS at discrete points along the TPS thickness during the given trajectory and
loiter period. The TPS is separated into nodes (layers) for computational purposes
including one surface node and many interior nodes. This method accounts for
conduction among the nodes using a finite difference approximation of the heat
equation [Incropera 1990, pp. 270-280]. The model is a one dimensional heat transfer
model with an adiabatic bondline. In other words, the heat is not allowed to pass
the bondline into the structure.

A solution derived from the Fmite-Difference Method can diverge if the step sizes
are not chosen properly. Stability criterion has been established for the method and
a warning will be printed to the screen if the criterion has not been satisfied
[Incropera 1990, pp. 270-280]. The two step size selections which determine stability
are the number of thickness increments (nodes) and the time increment.

13
Empirical equations for convective and gas cap radiation heating are applied to
temperature conditions for the surface node. Convecdve heating over a spherical
body is a function of the velocity and density of the freestream air, the nose radius,
and the inclination of the surface to the incoming air. Gas cap radiation is the heat
radiated from the high temperature air in the shock layer near the stagnation
region. This effect is essentially negligible for Earn reentry speeds below 35,000
ft/sec. The surface node cools itself by radiating heat to space and conducting heat to
the interior nodes.

The skin temperature for a non-ablative TPS is a function of the heating rate. The
peak skin temperature determines if a given non-ablative TPS material is viable.
Typically, short duration high g load trajectories (e.g., ballistic reentry) will result in
higher heat rates and lower total heat loads than most long duration, low g load
trajectories (e.g., skipping reentry). Consequently, ballistic or interplanetary re-
entries (e.g., Apollo) typically require ablative materials to handle high heat rates
while lifting re-entries (e.g., Orbiter) can employ reusable ceramic tiles to handle the
lower heat rates.

The peak bondline temperature is a function of the heat load and the TPS thickness.
However, the duration over which the heat load is applied is of critical importance.
The finite difference method allows for the "integration" of the bondline
temperature. The user must set a temperature limit for the structure under the TPS.
For example, a 350°F limit is typically imposed on aluminum structures. Apollo
employed steel honeycomb structure which could withstand 900°F temperatures.

For an ablative TPS the computations are slightly more complicated Once the
surface node temperature exceeds the ablation temperature, the material will begin
to ablate. The amount of material that ablates depends on the amount of excess
heat, that is, net heat input and a parameter called the effective heat of ablation.
Note, if radiative and conductive cooling effects exceed the heat input the net heat
input is negative and no ablation can take place.

The effective heat of ablation is defined as the heat required to ablate one lbm.
Theoretically, it includes the latent heat of ablation, the heat required to raise the
temperature of the mass to ablation temperature, the heat required to compensate
for radiative cooling at the ablation temperature, and the mass efflux effect The
latter effect is the absorption of heat input by the gas which is diffusing through the
boundary layer. The mass efflux effect is the only component of the effective heat of
ablation which is not constant since it is a function of the enthalpy difference across
the boundary layer. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the mass efflux effect
dither by theoretical or experimental means. Evaluation of ablators are further
complicated by the phenomenon of charring in which the material decomposes at
some temperature and then vaporizes at a higher temperature. However, values
for the mass efflux effect for various materials have been derived Am experiments
in which ablation was measured for various amounts of heat input in still air
conditions. Despite the error involved in this method, flight tests have verified use

14
of the values for preliminary design purposes. The figure below summarizes the
results of this experimental approach for eight different ablative materials. Note,
the program requires the input of the effective heat of ablation at zero enthalpy
difference and the slope of the line (i.e., mass efflux effect).

1.1.1.5.3 Future Work

This program was meant only to serve as an initial building block towards an
accurate, verified tool for designing a TPS. Listed below are possible tasks which
would further enhance the program.

Task 1. Modify program to iterate for minimum thickness which satisfies user
imposed limitations.

Task 2. Allow for determination of convective heat rate on flat surfaces (e.g., cones,
wings) [Irvin 1978, p73].

Task 3. Have program determine distribution of convective heat rate over the
entire exposed surface and the resulting required thickness distribution.

Task 4. Verify results using Gemini, Mercury, Apollo, and Orbiter.

1.2 Impact Attenuation

The design of impact attenuation mechanisms for a spacecraft or space structure will
be driven by impact and planetary surface conditions (terrestrial or non-terrestrial) .
These mechanisms must have low mass yet remain highly reliable since their
failure can result in complete loss of the spacecraft.

This section begins with several brief descriptions of both conceptual and existing
impact attenuation mechanisms. The section proceeds with a much more involved
discussion of parachute and crushable honeycomb design, and ends with an
overview of available recovery options for earth reentry vehicles.

1.2.1 Landing Mechanisms (Terrestrial and Non-terrestrial Applications)

The primary functions of landing mechanisms are to attenuate landing impact and
provide stability and support to the spacecraft. To accomplish this, the landing
mechanisms must be highly adaptable. The use of simple and proven designs like
conventional landing gear would be logical candidates and relatively inexpensive to
manufacture. Three landing gear legs should be sufficient for most lander
configurations. Although more legs would provide redundancy, historically,
spacecraft have used the minimum number of legs necessary to support the

15
spacecraft and maintain static stability. This minimum number of required legs
conveniently translates into lower spacecraft mass.

2.1.1.1 Telescopic Legs

The focus of this design is the ability of the lower leg to telescope into and out of the
upper strut which in itself will retract into the spacecraft. Using a system of pressure
and attitude sensors, coupled with the propulsion system, the computer will
instruct the upper struts to extend. The lower legs will Then extend until they reach
the ground. After all legs have touched down, a command will signal the legs to
lock. This configuration makes use of a heavy, active suspension system - an
assortment of linkages, coils, springs, torsion bars, and shock absorbers. Sketches of
the landing legs for the Viking and Lunar landers are given below to aid in
visualizing landing assemblies employing active suspension systems [Wolf 1988, pp.
21-26] [Gatland 1989, pp. 156, 175].

2.1.1.2 Hydraulic Pistons

This design consists of several structural elements connecting the lower stage to
hydraulic pistons. The pistons function similarly to mechanical jacks with the
added feature of computer control to ensure uniform leveling and stabilizing of the
landing craft. An advantage of this design is the high ball bearing capacity of the
hydraulic system which can provide some damping of impact forces. The ball and
roller beatings are designed to carry considerable transverse and radial loads. The
difficulty is maintaining an adequate seal on the pressure cylinder of the hydraulic
jack in a vacuum environment [Wolf 1989, pp. 21-26]

2.1.1.3 Aerobraking Landing Skids

The landing skids are formed from the aerobraking skirt of the spacecraft. The skirt
acts as a control surface, providing stability and control to the vehicle during
atmospheric entry. It also serves to increase drag as the vehicle's angle of attack is
varied during the descent. Prior to touchdown the skirt will rotate into a vertical
position to form a landing skid. A disadvantage of the design is that the joint of the
landing skid is a weak link, which may fail while aerobraking at high velocities
[Wolf 1988, pp. 21-26].

2.1.1.4 Lunar Module Landing Pads

Apollo style Lunar Module landing pads are a proven design. They spread the
vehicle's weight over a larger surface area which reduces contact pressure. If the
pads were modified to incorporate bladder-like units with internal pressure control,

16
the vehicle would have an advantage in soft crust surface conditions. By adding
sharpened point contacts at the ends of air bladder pads, the landing craft could also
compensate for rocky conditions. The landing gear points would protrude from the
bottom of the pads to fit between rocks, thus providing support The air bladders
maintain additional stability on rough terrain [Wolf 1988, pp. 21-26].

1.2.2 Parachute Deployment and use of Crushable Honeycomb

The following discussion provides some of the parameters and generalized

equations needed for the preliminary design of an aerodeceleration and impact
attenuation system for space related vehicles and structures. The intent is to
coordinate these parameters and equations in a proposed design methodology.
Parachute deployment is presented as one type of aerodeceleration, and crushable
honeycomb as a method of impact attenuation. These systems are jointly discussed
since their designs are so closely interrelated.

1.2.2.1 Parachutes

1.2.2.1.1 Reasons and Conditions for Employing a Parachute System

Parachutes provide the necessary deceleration for the salvaging of reusable or

delicate hardware (e.g. shuttle boosters, Apollo capsules, etc.) or for the attenuated
landing of planetary exploration vehicles. Efficient use of parachutes can provide
more than just deceleration or attenuated landing capabilities. In the past, as in the
Viking mission, the drag caused by parachute deployment has aided in the
extraction of larger parachute assemblies or supplemented pyrotechnic subsystems
in the required jettison of used or spent craft components.

For space related missions, parachutes are rarely the sole source of deceleration.
Usually parachutes will form part of an array of decelerators. Other decelerators
might include retrothrusting engines or aeroshells. The Viking lander, for example,
employed parachutes, retrothrusters, and an aeroshell/heat shield combination.
What are the criteria for designing parachutes. Although some of the criteria may
seem obvious, adherence to these criteria will determine the success of the design,
and ultimately the success of multi-million dollar space missions. The parachute
system must

1. provide the required deceleration;

2. be designed to maintain mass and volume requirements at a minimum;

3. be selected to allow for proper packaging capabilities (to minimize volume

and to account for adverse space conditions);

17
 4. withstand "chemical effects of attitude control motor fuels on textile
parachute components," [Irvin 1978, pg. 10] and heating effects due to
atmospheric entry conditions;

5. account for "the wake effect of large spacecraft forebodies on the drag area;"
[Irvin 1978, pg. 10]

6. be designed to avoid collision between jettisoned hardware and parachuting

hardware (some missions will require successive jettisoning of hardware);

7. minimize the shock loads to the payload during parachute deployment;

8. disengage itself from the payload immediately after impact to avoid the
unwanted dragging of payload; and

9. not lead to catastrophic failure if one of its subsystems (e.g. a singular

parachute) fails.

1.2.1.2.2 Parachute Design Parameters

For the actual design of the parachute system it is useful to indicate some of the
common design parameters. These design parameters are taken from the "Recovery
Systems Design Guide," a 1978 publication of Irvin Industries Inc. Tables 2.2.1 - 2.2.5
of the design guide are provided below. The tables present various parachute types
and their respective design parameters. It is worthwhile to mention that Irvin
Industries Inc. is still a good source of information and data for parachute systems
(several references are made to Irvin Industries in Cent publications of parachute
technology). Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico is also a good source
of information regarding parachutes and similar aerodynamic decelerators.

***Put Table Here***

Table 1.2.1 Solid Textile Parachutes

***Put Table Here***

Table 1.2.2 Slotted Textile Parachutes

***Put Table Here***

Table 1.2.3 Rotating Parachutes

***Put Table Here***

Table 1.2.4 Gliding Parachutes

18
***Put Table Here***

Table 1.2.5 Decelerators Other Than Parachutes

As seen above, the design guide distinguishes four sub-categories or sub-types of

parachutes. These are: 1) solid textile; 2) slotted textile; 3) rotating; and 4) gliding
parachutes. Each category contains a number of parachutes characterized by their
respective plan and profile views (top and side views). Each parachute is also
characterized by five distinct parameters as defined below:

1. Dc/Do = a ratio between a "basic construction dimension" [Irvin 1978, pg. 73] Dc
and parachute nominal diameter, Do.

2. Innated shape (Dp/D o) - a ratio between Dp, the projected diameter, and Do.

3. Drag coefficient (CDo) - given as a range. "The drag coefficient varies within a
characteristic range, influenced by such factors as canopy size, number of gores,
canopy porosity, suspension line length, air density, and rate of descent." [Irvin
1978, pg. 73] (Note: "gores" refers to the triangular ribbons comprising certain
parachutes, as opposed to a uniform cloth type parachute.)

4. Average angle of oscillation - given in degrees, this is given as a range of angles

within which the parachute is known to oscillate during descent (realizing that
the normal descent of parachute and payload is never perfectly symmetric or
vertical).

5. General application - all parachutes are not designed for the same mission
scenario. Some general application categories are: descent, deceleration,
stabilization drogue, pilot drogue, supersonic drogue, and extraction. (Note:
"Drogue" is the term given to a smaller parachute employed for deceleration,
stabilization, or extraction of a larger parachute.)

The "Recovery Systems Design Guide" offers a good source of parachute data,
however, it fails to distinguish some important categories under "general
application." These categories are subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic parachutes.
Designs for space related missions such as the emergency crew escape capsule of the
Hermes mission, the recovery of earth-reentering comet exploration capsules
("Rosetta" mission), the aerodeceleration of future Mars exploration missions, and
the aerodeceleration of a Titan (Saturn moon) exploration vehicle ("Cassini-
Huygens") an employ parachutes which may be deployed in a wide range of entry
velocities [Eiden 1989]. Some of the entry conditions for parachute deployment may
be as high as Mach 6, for which development of hypersonic parachutes is currently
studied. Taken from a 1969 report on aerodynamics decelerators, the table below
illustrates the possible Mach ranges within which typical parachute systems could be

19
deployed [Sandia 1970, pg.4]. The table offers other useful data which may be of use
to the student designer.

Table 1.2.6 Characteristics of frequently used parachutes

1.2.1.2.3 To Design a Parachute

How exactly does one go about designing a parachute. As could be expected of any
design effort related to aerospace engineering, no methodology or cook book list of
necessary ingredients is readily available. What are available are numerous
equations, tables, and graphs offered by several research groups used in calculating
certain characteristics of a parachute system. In addition, the design effort usually
involves extensive wind-tunnel testing, computer modeling of parachute stability
and flowfield conditions, stress analyses, prototyping and modeling of planetary
atmospheric conditions. The following proposed methodology is intended for a
very preliminary design and estimation of a parachute system, realizing that an all-
inclusive methodology would have to include the above mentioned design efforts.

1. General application. Decide what the primary or general application of the

parachute will be (e.g. deceleration, stabilization, subsonic, supersonic, etc. -
see #5 above)

2. Parachute sub-category. The choice of general application together with the

mission scenario should lead one to a choice of parachute sub-category (e.g.
solid textile, slotted textile, etc.). Though previously unmentioned, the design
guide by Irvin Industries Inc. also briefly distinguishes between high glide
parachutes (parachute or flexible wing) and circular parachutes. Diagrams and
key characteristics are given below. The reader should note that these diagrams
are offered solely for the purposes of familiarization with parachute
characteristics and nothing more. (Note: The diagrams originate from a figure
entitled "Generalized Decelerator System in Stable Equilibrium Descent
Through Homogenous Air Mass," and thus the presented equations may not
directly apply to all space applications.)

***Put Figure Here***

Figure 1.2.1 Rotating Parachutes

3. Sizing of the parachute. Do this by comparing sizes or dimensions of

parachutes that were used in similar mission scenarios to carry similarly sized
payloads. Sizing will include choice of canopy size, length of reefing lines,
length of riser and suspension lines, and number of parachutes used. (Note:
"Reefing" refers to the process of reducing or enlarging the effective drag area

20
 of parachute during descent by the use of reefing lines. "Riser" refers to one of
the straps that connects the payload harness to the main suspension lines.)

4. Materials. Choose the materials used for the canopy, lines and cables. This is
where weight and packaged volume considerations come into play. Below is a
list of possible materials used in canopy construction, as well as common
materials chosen for the lines and cables. [Ravnitzky 1989]

Polyester - commonly used in planetary lander parachute systems

Mission Uses
Pioneer-Venus polyester to resist sulfuric acid at elevated temperatures
in the Venus atmosphere.
Viking - permit 275° F anti-biological sterilization cycle
- dimensional stability under associated thermal
exposure
- minimize outgassing of instrumentation protection

Nylon - usually replaces polyester in non-space applications

Sulfars - polyphenylene sulfide or PPS (Manufacturer - Ryton)

"PPS is characterized by excellent chemical resistance at high temperatures
and could be used in chemically or thermally adverse environments such as
the Jovian or Venusian atmosphere. An experimental parachute
suspension line has been braided from Ryton."

Liquid Crystal Polymers/Para-amids - Kevlar

"The Soviets have recently described the use of para-amid on the

suspension lines and reinforcement tapes on Soyuz-TM spacecraft recovery
main reserve parachutes."

5. Important parameters. At this point several aerodynamic and geometric

parameters of the chosen parachute can either be determined from wind
tunnel testing or looked up in charts (such as those offered by the above
mentioned design guide). Some of these parameters were given above under
the heading "Parachute Design Parameters."

6. Rate of descent. To establish the rate of descent of the chosen parachute, graphs
are available relating the drag coefficient of the parachute to a rate of descent.
These graphs are offered for several types of parachutes. Rate of descent is
particularly important when trying to calculate the forces on impact. To give a
rough idea of expected rates of descent, the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury
parachute systems produced an average rate of descent of about 30 ft/s (9.l44
m/s). A typical CDo vs. rate of descent graph is given below. [Irvin 1978, pg. 273]

21
***Scann Figure

Figure 1.2.2 Parachute Drag Coefficient vs. Equilibrium Rate of Descent at Sea
Level (Circular Canopies)

7. Calculation of weight. A rough estimate of parachute system weight can either

be derived from plotted data of existing parachute systems (see the "Recovery
Systems Design Guide for these) or from the equations given below. [Irvin 1978
pg. 433-434]

For combined weight of canopy and suspension lines:

W p′ = S ow c + l e w lZ

wc = unit weight of an existing canopy

wl = unit weight of suspension line cord
le = length of extension lines
Z = number of lines
So = square footage of parachute canopy

For total packaging weight and volume of parachute system (this includes
the actual parachute canopy, suspension lines, risers, links, reefing rings,
cutters, etc.):

(
W p = 1.1 W′p + W R )
(weight of riser assembly)

ZR = number of riser branches

WW = unit weight of webbing piles
IB = length of branches above keeper
IR = length of riser below keeper

Wp
Vp =
∂p

∂p = the average pack density

Note: the average pack densities for several packing or packaging methods is
given below [Irvin 1978, pg. 435]. The choice of packing method is in the
discretion of the designer who must design under predetermined volume
and weight restrictions and mission environments.

22
***Put table here***

Table 1.2.5 Decelerator Pack Densities

1.2.2.2 Crushable or Collapsible Impact Honeycomb

At impact, a collapsible, self-leveling, impact honeycomb will plastically deform to

absorb the shock of the landing. It will distribute landing impact forces over the
entire lower surface of the landing craft rather than isolating the forces at discrete
points. Thus, material selection is a key consideration. Likely candidates include
lightweight metal alloys, carbon-carbon composites, and high density styrene
polymers. This design would provide significant mass savings over conventional
landing support mechanisms since the composite honeycomb weighs a fraction of
aluminum or steel [Wolf 1988, pp. 21-26].

The following methodology for designing a honeycomb cushioning system for space
applications is modeled after the methodology outlined in "Design of Cushioning
Systems for Air Delivery of Equipment." [Ellis 1961]. Though similar, the designs
resulting from the methodologies must necessarily differ for the following reasons.
There are two obvious differences between a honeycomb system designed for space
applications and one designed for air delivery. the priority given to the sedation of
honeycomb material and the assumed atmospheric and gravitational conditions.
For air delivery applications (e.g. of military vehicles), paper honeycomb is
commonly used, and atmospheric and gravitational conditions are sufficiency
documented to accurately model and test impact conditions. For space applications
honeycomb material must be selected to minimize mass and volume, and modeling
of impact conditions requires very accurate data concerning planetary atmospheric
and gravitational conditions. Unless the spacecraft or structure is reentering earth,
much of dais required data may be unavailable, thus complicating tile design
process. As mentioned above, tile proposed methodology is modeled after an air
delivery system. Some of the equations were also taken from "Recovery Systems
Design Guide."

1. Know the static and dynamic properties of The selected honeycomb material
from the material's static and dynamic stress-strain curves.

2. Determine the energy absorption characteristics of the material from The stress-
strain curves. The area under tile cove for a desired percent strain determines
The value of energy absorption. (Note Chat for space-related honeycomb
materials, any number of factors can influence the energy absorption
characteristics of the material, e.g. cell size and density. The designer must be
aware of These factors and should be able to predict the performance of the
honeycomb material).

3. Know The payload weight.

23
4. Know the maximum allowable acceleration, Gz .

5. Know the velocity on impact. If parachutes are used for deceleration, tile
graphs given above for parachute descent velocities can yield an approximation
for velocity on impact.

6. Calculate an estimate of the total energy to be dissipated by The honeycomb

cushioning. Note that the following formula can be generalized to any impact
attenuation system: [Irvin 1978, pg 321]

1
Ev = m bv 2 + W bh o
2
Ev = total energy dissipated
mb = mass of vehicle (at max. landing weight condition)
v = velocity of descent
Wb = m*g (max. landing weight condition)
ho = height of center of mass "above the landing surface when effective
contact is first made and mechanical deformation of the resisting
media (both onboard and on the surface) begins"

7. Calculate Fc, the ultimate compressive stress per unit area of the chosen
honeycomb material (determined from impact tests).

8. Calculate the specific energy absorbing qualities of the honeycomb material:

[Irvin 1978, pg 321]

∆h 1
E spec = F c
he we

Espec = specific energy

Fc = ultimate compressive stress per unit area
∆h = usable stroke (determined from impact tests). 'The end of the usable
stroke is reached when the material has been crushed to a density
which causes the compressive resistance to increase sharply."
h e = constructed height of the impact attenuated system, in this case the
thickness of the honeycomb pad. We = weight density of the
honeycomb

9. Calculate the impact force or peak retarding fore:

F m = W b (G z + 1)

10. Calculation of total weight of honeycomb used

24
 Ev
Total weight = ratio of total dissipated energy to specific energy
E spec
of the honeycomb material

A final note on use of crushable honeycomb materials for impact attenuation -

calculation of the proper amount of honeycomb, specifically the area covered by the
honeycomb, is important. The air delivery guide explains, "an excess of cushion
area can cause a great deal of damage to the cushioned item." The above equations
do not supply a calculation for required area of honeycomb. This should be
researched the air delivery guide supplies a formula, namely:

W(G z + 1)
Area =
Sa

Where S a is the average dynamic crushing stress.

However, for space applications it is not known whether this formula is accurate
enough. At the most, the formula does point to the direct proportionality between
area and g-loading. "Notice that if the area is inch the "g-loading" on the vehicle
increases also." [Irvin 1978, pg 321]

1.2.3 Earth Recovery of Launch Vehicles or Manned Spacecraft

There are several options available when considering the recovery of either launch
vehicles or manned spacecraft. These are: aerial, ground and water recovery. Each
of these options will be analyzed against the following different recovery systems:
parachute, parafoil (flexible wing) and fixed wing.

1.2.3.1 Background

The Space Shuttle is the only reusable manned spacecraft in operation. Reusable
spacecraft under development are the Soviet Buran (which is very similar to the
Space Shuttle), the European Space Agency's Hermes, the National Aerospace Plane,
the British HOTOL, and the German Sänger. Additionally, the National Space
Development Agency of Japan is working on a reusable vehicle named HOPE that
will be launched on the H-II launch vehicle [NASDA 1987]. All of the vehicles
named above employ the fixed wing recovery system with ground landing. The
Apollo-type vehicles of the past are examples of spacecraft using the parachute
recovery system with water landing. As for launch vehicles and boosters, the Space
Shuttle's solid rocket boosters (SRBs) also use the parachute recovery system with
water landing. Aerial recovery with use of the parachute and parafoil have only
been used experimentally.

25
1.2.3.2 Aerial Recovery

The first thing to consider regarding aerial recovery is the weight of the payload.
The recovery of a 200,000 lb booster is obviously a more formidable task than
retrieving a 500 lb payload. Therefore, aerial recovery is not recommended for large
payloads.

In 1972, the Air Force conducted experiments and published the results of an aerial
recovery system for the Black Brant MK-VB sounding rocket payload [Byam 1972].
The payload weighed 454 lb and was retrieved by a JC-130 aircraft. The major
components of the aerial recovery system are the parachute system and its
deployment, and the winch system on the aircraft used to bring the payload aboard
The parachute is deployed in three stages. First, a 4 foot diameter pilot chute is
deployed, another 6 foot chute follows, and finally, the main chute. Each chute,
upon inflation, deploys next. A derivative of the Air Force system would be the
parafoil. A parafoil is basically a flexible wing which is deployed in the same
manner as a parachute. This would make the operation much simpler because of
the 4 to 1 glide ratio of typical airfoils.

1.2.3.3 Ground and Water Recovery

Ground and water recovery are considered simultaneously because of their

similarities. The major differences are recovery operations and impact conditions.

As mentioned before, all of the reusable manned spacecraft use a fixed wing system
with ground landing, whereas the early Apollo type vehicles were non-reusable and
landed at sea with a parachute system. The fixed wing is also being investigated for
use with booster recovery. Charles Breiner filed for a patent on November 9, 1989
for a fixed wing system to be used for recovering the Space Shuttle's SRBs
[MacConochie 1989]. He contends that his system, which can double as a heat shield,
can be used to glide either back to the launch site or to the recovery site. This
system, if developed would be beneficial because of its use with large payloads and
its controllability.

Parachutes, on the other hand, lade the desired control used in fixed wings and
parafoils. The Space Shuttle SRBs, weighing 193,000 lb, are recovered at sea by the
use of three parachutes. The replacement of the parachute with a parafoil would
result in a savings due to two things: 1) impact velocity could be reduced from 90
ft/s to 15 ft/s, reducing the needed 12.5 tons of insulation in the casing used to ease
impact; and 2) tracking and retrieval would be facilitated because of the parafoil
controllability.

26
The parafoil is an excellent recovery system for unmanned reusable spacecraft
because it provides the flexibility of being able to be stowed like a parachute and has
the controllability of faxed wings. A 1969 report states that a parafoil system,
designed by Goodyear Aerospace, "is capable of delivering 100 to 500 lb of cargo to
within 200 ft of a ground radio transmitter from altitudes of 500 to 30,000 ft.' 24 This
is accomplished by a tracking system along with a control system that pulls in the
rear suspension lines, inducing drag to the pulled side, and thus turning the
parafoil. A landing flare is accomplished by pulling in both of the rear lines at the
same time just prior to impact. This dramatically increases lift and drag resulting in
a soft landing. Pioneer Aerospace has designed a parafoil system with a baseline
recovery weight of 60,000 lb [Kolcum 1989, pp. 101-102].

Appendix F contains a program written in BASIC by Marls Snaufer and H. A. Ruiz

(for Eagle Engineering, Inc.) that can be used to obtain a time history of deceleration
loads on impact. The program is only valid for spacecraft for which the impact
surface is spherical. The program is based on the following assumptions:

1. The spacecraft's impact surface can be modeled as a sphere.

2. The sum of the vertical momentum of the sphere and the momentum
imparted by the sphere to the mass of water affected (called the virtual mass) is
constant and is equal to the vertical momentum of the spacecraft just before
contact with the water.

3. The virtual mass of the water is equal to the mass contained in an expanding
sphere of a diameter equal to the spacecraft's chord at the water's surface.

4. Skin friction may be neglected.

5. The flow is considered to be two-dimensional.

6. The body is assumed to be rigid.

7. The water density is assumed to be that of sea water.

1.3 References

"A Manned Mission to Mars: Preliminary Design Review 2," University of Tencas at
Austin, Deparanent of Aerospace Engineering May 1986.

"A Preliminary Design on a Phobos Industrial Production and Supply Base,"

University of Texas at Ausdn, Depanment of Aerospace Engineering,
December 1986.

27
"Aerodynamic Decelerators - An Engineering Review," Sandia Laboratory,
Albuquerque, N. Mex., 1970.

Aerodynamics Decelerators - An Engineering Review," Sandia Laboratory,

Albuquerque, N. Mex., 1970, pg. 4.

"Aeromaneuvering AOTV Concept," AIAA Joumal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.

24, May-June 1987.

"Apollo 16 Press Kit,' National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, D.C., April 1972.

Bauer, PE., Collicott, H.E., "Entry Vehicle Headng and Thermal Protection Systems:
Space Shuttle, Solar Starprobe, Jupiter Galileo Probe," hogess in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, Vol. 85, American Institute of Aeronautdcs and
Astronautics, Inc., New Yoric, NY, 1982.

Botbyl, Fowler, W.T., "Space Systems Design, Spacecraft Mission Design," University
Space Research Association, Texas Space Grant Consortium, January 1991.

Braun, RD., "Trajectory Analysis of a Low Lift/Drag Aeroassisted Orbit Transfer

Vehicle," American Astronautical Society, AAS 87-123, 1987.

Byam, L.T., "Evaluation of an Aerial Recovery System for Black Brant MK-VB
Sounding Rocket Payload," Technical Report Number 72-43, Air Force Flight
Test Center, California, September 1972.

Byam, L.T., "Evaluation of an Aerial Recovety System for Black Brant MK-VB
Sounding Rocket Payload," Technical Report Number 72-43, Air Force Flight
Test Center, f~~~lif<>rnia, September 1972.

Corning, G., aerospace Vehicle Design," Aeronautical Engineering Department,

University of Maryland, 1968.

Corning, Gerald, "Aerospace Vehicle Design," Aeronautical Engineering

Department, University of Maryland, 1968.

Eiden, M. J., "Aerodynamics Decelerators for Future European Space Missions,"

ALAA Meeting Paper 89-0879.

Eiden, M.J., "Aerodynamics Decelerators for Future European Space Missions,"

AIAA Meeting Paper 89-0879.

Ellis, B.C., Ripperger, E.A., Thompson, J.N., "Design of Cushioning Systems for Air
Delivery of Equipment," Balcones Research Center, Ausdn, TX, August 1961.

28
Ellis, B.C., Ripperger, E.A., Thompson, J.N., "Design of Cushioning Systems for Air
Delivery of Equipment," Balcones Research Center, Austin, 1X, August 1961.

Forehand, J.E., Bair, H.Q., 'sParawing Precision Aerial Delivery System," J. Aircraft,
Vol.6, No. 5, September-October 1969.

"Future Space Transportation," National Space Devdopment Agency of Japan,

NASDA's l9dl Techical Session, November 16, 1987.

"Future Space Transportation," National Space Development Agency of Japan,

NASDA's l9th Techical Session, November 16, 1987.

Gadand, K, "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology," Second Edition,

Orion Books, New York, NY, 1989. pp. 156, 175.

Gatland, K, "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology," Second Edidon,

Orion Books, New York, NY, 1989.

Holmberg, N. A., Faust, R. P., Holt, H. M., "Viking '75 Spacecraft: Design and Test
Summary, Vol I - Lander Design," NASA Reference Publication 1027,
November 1980.

Holmberg, N. A., Faust, R. P., Holt, H. M., "Viking '75 Spacecraft: Design and Test
Summary, Vol II - Orbiter Design," NASA Reference Publication 1027,
November 1980.

Howe, J.T., "Hypentelocity Atmospheric Flight: Real Gas Flow Fields," NASA
Reference Publication 1249, November 1990.

Howe, J.T., "The Rationale for an Aeroassited Flight Experiment," Presented at the
22nd Thermophysics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, ALAA Paper No. 87-1508, 1987.

Incropera, F., Dewitt, D., Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer," Mechanical
Engineenng Department, Purdue University, 1990.

Incropera, F., Dewitt, D., "Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer", Mechanical
Engineering Department, Purdue University, 1990.

Knapp, CF., Barton, W.R, Controlled Recovery of Payloads at Large Glide Distances,
Using the Para-foil," J. Aitt raft, Vol. 5, No. 2, March-April 1968.

Kolcum, E.H. "Spacecraft Recovery Concept Embodies Parafoil, New Reefing

Techniques," Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 1, 1989, pp. 101-102.

29
Kolcum, E.H. "Spacecraft Recovery Concept Embodies Parafoil, New Reefing
Techniques," Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 1, 1989.

MacConochie, I. and Breiner, C.A., "A Two-Stage Ear~~-toErbit Transport With

Translating Oblique Wings for Booster Recovery," Patent Application,
November 9, 1989.

MacConochie, L and Breiner, C.A., "A TweStage Earth-to-Orbit Transport With

Translating Oblique Wings for Booster Recovery," Patent Application,
November 9, 1989.

Menees, G.P., Park, C, and Howe, J.T., "Transatmospheric Flight Vehicles and the
Udlizadon of Cislunar Space," NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
Calif., 1985.

Ravnitzky, M. J., 'Innovative Parachute Materials," AIAA Meeting Paper 890909.

"Recovery Systems Design Guide," Technical Report AFFDL-TR-78-151, Irvin

Industries Inc. June 1978.

Robinson, R. D., "Fast Ear^-Mars Transfers: Mission Plan," ASE 387P Mission
Analysis and Design, Department of Aerospace Engineering, The University
of Texas at Austin, Spring 1990.

"Space Shuttle News Reference," National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

U.S. Govemment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Walberg, G.D., "A Review of Aeroassisted Orbit Transfer," Presented at the AIAA
9th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA Paper No. 82-1378,
August 9-11, 1982.

Walberg, G.D., "A Review of Aeroassisted Orbit Transfer," Presented at the AIAA
9th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA Paper No. 82-1378,
August 9-11, 1982.

Walberg, G.D., Siemers, P.M., Calloway, R.L., and Jones, J.J., "The Aeroassist Flight
Experiment," Presented at the AIAA 38th IAF Congress, International
Astronautical Federation, Paper No. LAF-87-197, 1987.

Wolf, "Conceptual Design of a Mars Logistics Lander Convertible to a Rocket

Hopper," The University of Texas at Austin, Fall 1988.

Wolf, "Conceptual Design of a Mars Logistics Lander Convertible to a Rocket

Hopper," The University of Texas at Austin, Fall 1988.

30
Wolf, D.F., Spahr, H.R., "Parachute Cluster Dynamics Analysis," J. Aircraft, Vol. 14,
No. 4, April 1977.

Yenne, B., "Atlas of the Solar System", Bison Books Group, New York, 1989.

Yenne, B., "Atlas of the Solar System", Bison Books Group, New York, 1989.

1.5 Appendix A - Planetary Conditions

1.5.1 Mars

Because Mars is smaller and less dense than Earth, its gravity is less and its
atmosphere thinner. It is colder than Earth, with temperatures ranging from highs
of 80° F near the Martian equator to lows of -200° F in its polar regions. The Martian
summer is much warmer than its winter, which is characterized by occasional light
mow or frost.

The Martian surface appears rust-red because of a high concentration of iron oxide.
Its surface is marked by a wide range of geologic features like mountains, sand
dunes, and valleys. In addition, craters and huge, dry riverbeds are cut into the
planet's surface. As a result, spacecraft will most likely encounter rocky and uneven
surfaces. Additionally, severe wind and dust storms can last up to several months.
A landing craft must take this into account by protecting sensitive components from
dust particles. The spacecraft must be tightly sealed to prevent contamination from
these particles.

1.5.2 Mercury

Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, is composed mostly of iron, wide the surface
crust being silica rock lice that of Earth and the Moon. It has a relatively weak
magnetic field despite its being composed mostly of iron. Furthermore, Mercury has
virtually no atmosphere. Because there is no atmosphere to hold the heat, surface
temperatures vary from 620˚ F to -346˚ F.

Like parts of the lunar surface, Mercury is pocketed by thousands of craters,

overlapping craters, and craters within crates. Other minor features include ridges
and escarpments which can rise as high as 6300 feet above the adjacent valley floors.

1.5.3 Earth's Moon

The Moon has neither magnetic poles nor a significant magnetic field. Due to its
low mass and density, it has no atmosphere. Its surface is characterized by rugged
mountain ranges and by thousands of meteorite impact craters. However, about 15%

31
of the Lunar surface consists of large open areas called "maria" which are
concentrated on the Earthward side, probably due to the gravitational effect of the
Earth

1.6 Appendix C - Materials

Materials for different types of applications for a planetary unmanned mission to

Mars, Mercury, or the Moon are discussed below.

Because of the wide tempters range encountered at the three planets, especially
Mercury, equipment must be made of materials that have low thermal expansion to
reduce thermal stresses. The extremely cold temperatures also increase the
likelihood of brittle fracture in metals. Therefore, beryllium alloys are not useful
even though they are strong and lightweight. They are brittle and tend to suffer
from vibrational cracks. Reinforced carbon-carbon composites offer excellent
thermal protection up to temperatures of 2500° F. However, they are very expensive.
Aluminum alloys are good candidates since they are excellent heat conductors,
which reduce thermal stresses at high temperatures. Relatively inexpensive, dray
are also lightweight and strong.

Due to the low density atmospheres of Mercury and Mars, the planets' surfaces are
continuously bombarded by micrometerorites. If these micrometeorites are large
enough, they can inflict substantial damage to a spacecraft due to their extremely
high velocity. As a result, strong materials must be used to provide protection from
these micrometeorite showers. Steel alloys are strong but have a low strength-to-
mass ratio. The logical choice would be titanium alloys which have a high strength-
to-mass ratio. They are resistant to corrosion, but are costly.

The existence of weak magnetic fields at Messy and the Moon means that
equipment will be subject to intense radiation by incoming charged panicles.
Continuous radiation may cause materials to become brittle Again, aluminum
alloys are recommended since they are insensitive to radiation and resistant to
corrosion. Another material to be considered would be a derivative of the Space
Shuttle ceramic tiles Slat is stronger and lighter. It would act as a combination of
thermal insulation and radiation-proof shield for highly critical areas of the
spacecraft.

1.7 Appendix D - Impact Conditions for an Unmanned Martian Descent

The terminal descent of the spacecraft to the planet surface requires a detailed
planning and analysis. The orbital ∆V maneuver, entry angle, descent velocity,
deceleration, and landing site need to be adjusted for each mission. The final surface
impact must be thoroughly analyzed as it is critical that the landing mechanism be

32
able to absorb the shock of landing. The following recommendations can be used as
a general guideline for an unmanned Martian descent.

- initial atmospheric envy height of 100 km with orbital velocity of 4000 m/s.
- shallow entry angles allow the spacecraft to take advantage of the thin Martian
atmosphere for aerobreaking (about 15° below the local horizontal).
- descent velocity reduced to 1000 m/s by firing socket thrusters at about 20 km.
- at 100 km, parachutes are deployed to reduce the spacecraft speed to 100 m/s.
- at 2 km, heat shield is jettisoned pyrotechnically and main engine ignited to slow
the spacecraft's velocity to nearly zero, at a hovering height of 50 meters.
- after final landing site is targeted by the guidance and control system, the engine is
throttled down and landing gear extended.
- engine cut off for final approach at an altitude of 10 m.
- spacecraft touched down on the planet surface with an impact velocity of 3 m/s.

33