e

N84-10115

NASA Conference Publication 2283
Part 1

Shuttle Performance: Lessons Learned
Compiled by .

Jamei P. Arrington and Jim J. Jones NASA Langley Rpsearrh Crntrr Hamplon, VirBinio Proceedings of a conferenee held at N A S A Langley Research Center Hampton. Virginia March 8-10, 1983

National Aero3autics

and Space Adminis!ralion
Scientific and Technical Information Branch
RIPRJDUCED BY

NAT1ONAL TECHNICA L INFORMATION SERVICE
U .;. M P I R I M I N T Oi COMWtRCt SPRINGFIELO. V I . 27161

1983

e

1. Repwt No.

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No
5 Report Date

- C1?-21S'i. NASA 4. Title and !;ubtltle

PdrL 1

October 1983
SHlrTTLE PERFORMANCE:
7 Authorbt

LESSONS LEARNED

6 Performing Organization Code

506-51-13-06
8. Performing Organization Report No

9

Janes

,'.

Arrington and J i m J. Jones, Compilers

L-15673
10 Work Unit No

Performing Orpanization Name dnd Address

N S Langley Kcscsrch Ccntcr AA Hanpto.7, Virginia 23665
~~

1 1 . Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Repon and Period Covered

12. Sporisorin<l Agency Name and Address

Confer enc e Pub 1i c A t i o n
14 Sponsoring Agency Code

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washin,<ton, D C 20546 5. Supptemertary Notes

6. Abslracl

F u l l t e x t s a r e included o f papers presented a t a conference held a t Langley Research Cer.ter, March 8-10, 1983. The purpose o f t h e conference was t o e v a l u a t e d a t a obtained during t h e f i r s t f l i g h t s o f t h e Space S h u t t l e , t o compare t h e d a t a t o design o r preElight p r e d i c t i o n s , and t o a s s e s s improvements i n t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t which cucld lie incorporated i n t o a n y new space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system design. The a r e a s cocsidered were a s c e n t aerodynamics; e n t r y aerodynamics; aerclthennal environment ;

thermal p r o t e c t i o n ; guidance, navigation, and c o n t r o l ; and measurement and a n a l y s i s techniques. Papers wcre contributed from several NASA c e n t e r s , t h e A i r Force, i n d u s t r i e s , and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Also included a r e summary comments by t h e chairpersons of the sessions.

7

7 Kev Word? (Suggested by Author(s1)

18. Distribution Statement

Space S h u t t l e Flight data Aersdyrtamic performance Convective h e a t t r a n s f e r Thermal protection systems

Unclassified

-

Unlimited Subject Category 16

e

9 Security Clauif (of this report1

20 Security Clauif (of this page)

21. No of Pager

22 Rice

Unclassified
h-IDS

Unclassified

660

A9 9

Far sale by Ihe National Technical lnformatlon Service. Springfield. Virglnia 22161

I

a

NOTICE T H I S DOCUM.ENT H A S B E E N R E P R O D U C E D F R O M T H E B E S T C O P Y F U R N I S H E D US B Y T H E SPONSORING AGENCY. A L T H O U G H IT

IS R E C O G N I Z E D T H A T C E R T A I N P O R T I O N S
ARE ILLEGIBLE,

IT IS B E I N G R E L E A S E D

I N T H E INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS M U C H I N F O R M A T I O N A S P O S S I B L E .

PREFACE

Be1;inrLing t i l t h t h e f i r s t o r b i t a l f l i g h t of t h e Space S h u t t l e , a g r e a t w e a l t h of f l i g h t d a t a became a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a e r o s p a c e community. These d a t a w e r e immediately s u b j e c t e d t o a n a l y s e s by s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t groups w i t h d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s and rno t i v a t i o n s

.

The c o n t r a c t o r s , r e p r e s e n t e d p r i m a r i l y by t h e prime c o n t r a c t o r , Rockwell I n t e r na.tiona:t, were concerned w i t h v e r i f y i n g subsystems and c o r r e c t i n g any d e f i c i e n c i e s t o make t h e v e h i c l e o p e r a t i o n a l . Having s p e n t a decade o r more i n v e h i c l e d e s i g n and t e s t i n g , t h e c o n t r a c t o r s were anxious t o assess t h e q u a l i t y of t h e i r product.
The c o n t r a c t o r s ' c o u n t e r p a r t s w i t h i n t h e NASA o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s P r o j e c t O f f i c e had a s i m i l a r investment, and NASA immediately began t o assess t h e measured performance of t h e v e h i c l e a g a i n s t t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e and p r e v i o u s p r e d i c t i o n s . The primary m o t i v a t i o n , i n most c a s e s , was t h e n e c e s s i t y t o c e r t i f y t h e v e h i c l e f o r roperat i o n a l s t a t u s .

Researchers a t s e v e r a l NASA c e n t e r s and elsewhere i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n were anxious t o reduce and a n a l y z e t h e d a t a . They regarded t h e S h u t t l e as though i t were a r e s e a r c h v e h i c l e , and t h e cornucopia of d a t a from t h e O r b i t a l F l i g h t Test program w a s viewed as a m a g n i f i c e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o assess the s t a t e of t h e a r t i n p r e d i c t h g t h e performance of a complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n throughout t h e speed range €rom e n t r y t o touchdown. Through t h e O r b i t e r Experiments Program, t h e r e s e a r c h e r s ,proposed and developed several i n s t r u m e n t s and experiments t o supplement t h e b a s i c developnental f l i g h t instrumentation. In some c a s e s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s were s u c c e s s f u l i n having t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s and experiments i n s t a l l e d d u r i n g t h e OFT f l i g h t s . The A i r Force w a s a l s o i n t e n s e l y interested i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e f l i g h t d a t a and independently a s s e s s e d t h e S h u t t l e t o e n s u r e t h a t i t m e t t h e i r needs. F u t u r e launches from t h e Western T e s t Range w i l l r e q u i r e g r e a t e r c r o s s r a n g e t h a n Kennedylaunched m i s s i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e A i r Force was anxious t o a s s e s s t h e s e f i r s t f l i g h t s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r h i g h e r c r o s s r a n g e on f u t u r e e n t r i e s . Frequent t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e s w e r e h e l d d u r i n g t h e O r b i t e r F l i g h t T e s t program among representatives of each o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups Aerodynamics and the a e r o t h e r m a l performance w e r e p r i n c i p a l d i s c i p l i n e s r e p r e s e n t e d , and a g e n e r a l p i c t u r e began t o emerge i n t h e s e areas. The v e h i c l e ' s o v e r a l l performance was w e l l p r e d i c t e d fin t h e d e s i g n phase, b u t a number of d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t e d which w a r r a n t e d f u r t h e r investigation. A1t:hough some of t h e r e s u l t s AIAA c o n f e r e n c e s , p a p e r s i n t h e s e papers and t h u s f a i l e d t o g i v e an o n l y a f r a c t i o n of t h e i n t e r e s t e d discuss these papers. of t h e s e f l i g h t d a t a a n a l y s e s began t o a p p e a r i n c o n f e r e n c e s were u s u a l l y i n t e r m i x e d w i t h o t h e r overview of t h e v e h i c l e ' s performance. F u r t h e r , p a r t i e s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r were p r e s e n t t o h e a r and

'

We, a t Langley, b e l i e v e d t h a t i t w a s an a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e t o have a g e n e r a l convocation devoted t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e S h u t t l e d a t a and t h a t t h i s meeting would h e l p p r o v i d e a mechanism t o c o l l e c t and t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e r e s u l t s i n a s i n g l e p u b l i c a t i o n . The conference was h e l d a t Langley on March 8-10, 1983, a l i t t l e o v e r Papers w e r e s o l i c i t e d i n t h e s u b j e c t areas of a s c e n t and e n t r y 3 months a f t e r STS-5.

Preceding page blank

iii

aerodynamics; guidance, n a v i g a t i o n , and c o n t r o l ; aerotherinai erivircriiw,!L t h e r m a l p r o t e c t i o n systems; and measurement t e c h n i q u e s .
by Tlr. Robert Hoey of t h e A i r Force F l i g h t T e s t Center a t E d ?;ajar Steven Nagel o f t h e Lls:ron:%l:L O f Z i i e ;it .Jcll:r.:;c?i-: C ,<... c S i l v e i r a o f NASA H e a d q u a r t e r s . iJs have also i n c l u d e 2 5 Zeu n o t given o r a l l y b u t t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e o v e r a l l u n d e r s t a

7 ; -

L

1

I

.

These volumes c o n t a i n n o t o n l y t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r s but a l s o t h e i n v i t e d

I

performance. The u s e of t r a d e names o r names o f m a n u f a c t u r e r s i n t h i s r e y o r t Goes nci? c o n s t i t u t e a n o f f i c i a l endorsement of such p r o d u c t s o r m a n u f a c t u r e r s , e i t i i c r t?>:j'l-S'- ~ d o r i m p l i e d , by t h e N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

iv

CONTENTS Y'~EFACE

......................................................................
_ I

iii

Part 1

ASCENT AERODYNAMICS I Chairpersons:

Tru E. Surber, R o c k w e l l I n t e r n a t i o n a l W i l l i a m I. S c a l l i o n , NASA Langley Research C e n t e r

LAIIKCH VEHICLE AERODYNAMIC DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON WITH F L I G H T DATA ,J. T. I l a m i l t o n , R . 0. Wallace, and C . C. D i l l

................................................................
............................................................
..........................

19

SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH VEHICLE AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTIES : LESSONS LEARNED J. T. Hamilton LAUNCH VEH[CLE AERODYNAMIC FLIGHT T E S T RESULTS..... L. Y. Gaines, W. L . Osborn, and P D. W i l t s e .

37
41

AERODYNAMIC ANALYSTS O F THE LOFT ANOMALY OBSERVED ON ORBITAL FLIGHT TESTS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE..... T . E. !iurber a n d J. S . Stone TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSMENT O F ASCENT AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPACL: SHUTTLE LAUNCH SYSTEM. Kenneth S. Leahy ASCENT AERODYNAMICS 11
Chairpersons:

............................................

59

...........................................

79

Barney B. R o b e r t s , NASA Johnson Space C e n t e r

C, L. W. Edwards, NASA Langley Research Center
SLiPERSOliIC LOADS DUE TO SHUTTLE-ORBITER/EXTERNAL-TANK ATTACHMENT
STRUC'rURE:S C. l' E d w a r d s , P. i.

.>.

.................................................................
J. B o b b i t t , and W. J. M o n t a

95
139
159

SHUTTLE ROOSTER SEPARATION AERODYNAMICS H a r k K. C r a i g and H e n r y S. D r e s s e r SHUTTLE LAUNCH DEBRIS ?lark K. C r a i g

......................................

-- SOURCES,

CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS....................

4SCENT A I R DATA SYSTEM RESULTS FROM THE SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT TEST PROGRA~....... Ernc.st R . H i l l j e and Raymond L. N e l s o n

........................................................
V

187

DEVELOPMENT O F SPACE SHUTTLE ZCIWCION OVEKPKESSURE E N V K R O W E N ' T A h 9 CORRELArION NLTH FLIGIIT 2 4 T 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........

'7 i9

S. L e i

J V T Y Y 4ERODY NAMI CS I

Chairpersons:

Jamcs C. Young, NASA Johnson Space Center Bernard S p e n c e r , J r . , NASA Langley R e s e a r ~ hCen;er

SPACE SHUTTLE ENTRY L0NGI'rUl)iYAL AERODYNAMIC COMPARISONS OF FLIGHTS 1-4 WITY P R E F I , I W T P ~ E D I C T t O Y S . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ~ . Paul 0. Remere a q d 4 V i l e s $ ! h i t n a h . A REVIEW OF PREFLIGHT !:STIYkTES OF REAL-GAS EFFECTS ON SPACE SHUTTLE AERODYKAYI? CH4R4CTEIIIS'PICS.. W . C. Woods, 1. 7'. A;ri:igtoii, and ! . . Yamilton I1 iE

............

-, c,, ,

',

......................................
............

!

I 1

EXPLANATION OF THE H Y F E R S O X I C LOiTGITUDIN4L S T A B I L I T Y PKORLLPI LESSONS LEARNEn.............................................~.. B. J. G r i E f j . t h , .T. K. V.I~-S, iind .J. T. Best

)',

'

SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER P.EACTLW c o m m SUBSYSTEM FLIGHT DAT 4 ANOMALIES J. S . S t o n e , J. -1. 5aumnis~-!i, a n d R. P . R o b e r t s
ANALYSIS OF SHCTTLE OSCILLA':IO,u' IN T H E PlACH NUMBER = 1.7 T Z MACH NUMBER = !.O Y A ~ G E . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . William T. S u i t , Haro!d R. Csmptor., W i l l i a m 1. Scal!ion, James R. S c h i e s s , a x i L. 5cs. Gahnn
APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING W E E m c r O F AEROELASTICITY CHARACTERISPICS OF 1 B E St'AC5 S i l U T T L S ORBI'CLR., D. C. S c h l o s s e r sild 3. I;. Eoitlinlk

..................................................................
................

-57;

, -

...........................

O N A~~:~)L:Y';'.'~YI.-

_

I

EP<TRY AERODYNAMICS I1

MINIMUM TESTING OF THE SPACF' SHU'T'TL9 OKFITER FOR STAHILiTv AI25
CONTROL DERIV.~TLVSS.............. Douglas R. Cooke

.........................................

vi

PREDICTED AND FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCE, STABILITY AND CONTROL OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE F ROM REENTRY TO LANDING........................ Paul W. K i r s t e n , David F. Richar dson, and C h a r l e s M. Wilson

50 9

525
AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENT IDENTIFICATION PACKAGE DYNAMIC DATA ACCURACY DETERMINATIONS LESSONS L ~ E . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . END................. M i ch a e l L. Heck, J o h n T. F i n d l a y , and Har old R. Compton

-

54 9

573

GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION, AND CONTROL
Chairpersons: Kenneth J. Cox, NASA Johnson Space C e n t e r Howard W. S tone, Jr., NASA Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r
58 1

SHUTTLE ASCENT GNM: POSTFLIGHT RESULTS....................................... Gene McSwain THE APPIJCATION OF AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTIES I N THE DESIGN OF THE ENTRY TRAJECTORY AND FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER...,...... J o e D. Gamble SPACE SHUTTLE DESCENT FLIGHT CONTROL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND EXPERLMENTS................................ G. I a f e r a n d D. Wil son

59 5

................................

617

USE OF N O K I N E A R DAMPERS TO SUPPRESS SPACE SHUTTLE PAYLOAD MODES............. C l i n t C. Browning and Gordon E. H unter
APPROACII AND LANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE O R B I T E R . . . . . . . . . . . . Cynt.hia A. Bourne and Paul W, Klrsten

6 29

637

J

P a r t 2*
A E R O T H E W ENVIRONMENT I

Chairpersons:

Dorothy B. Lee, NASA Johnson Space C e n t e r David A. Throckmorton, NASA Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r

CALCULATION OF SHUTTLE BASE HEATING ENVIRONMENTS AND COMPARISON WITH FLIGHT DATA................ Terry F. Greenwood, Young C. Lee, Robert L. Bender, a n d R o b e r t E. Carter

................................................

6 53

-

* P a r t 2 i s p r e s e n t e d u n d e r s e p a r a t e cover.

vi i

TRENDS I N SHUTTLE ENTRY HEATING FROM THE CORRELATION O F FLIGHT T E S T MANEUVERS............. James K. Hodge

.....................................................

687

F L I G H T TEST DERIVED HEATING MATH MODELS FOR C R I T I C A L LOCATIONS ON THE ORBITER DURING REENTRY..................................................... Elam K. H e r t z l e r and P a u l W. P h i l l i p s ORBITEK ENTRY HEATING LESSONS LEARNED FROM DEVELOPMENT FLIGHT T E S T PROGR~.................................................................... J. W. H a n e y SHUTTLE ORBITER BOUNDARY LAYER TRANSITION AT F L I G H T AND WIND TUNNEL CONDI'rIONS................................................................. Winston D. G o o d r i c h , Stephen M. Derry, and John J. B e r t i n ORBITER WINDWARD SURFACE ENTRY HEATING: POST-ORBITAL FLIGHT T E S T PROGRAM UA.................... PT.................... DE.................... M. H. H a r t h u n , C. B. Rlumer, and B. A. M i l l e r AEROTHERMAL ENVIRONMENT I I Chairpersons:
John J. B e r t i n , U n i v e r s i t y of T e x a s a t A u s t i n

703

719

753

781

E. V i n c e n t Zoby, NASA L a n g l e y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r VISCOUS SHOCK-LAYER PREDICTIONS OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL NONEQUILIBRILJM FLOWS PAST THE SPACE SHUTTLE AT HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK......,................ M. D. K i m , S , S w a m i n a t h a n , and C l a r k H. L e w i s CATALYTIC SURFACE E F F E C T S ON SPACE SHUTTLE THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM DURING EARTH ENTRY O F FLIGHTS STS-2 THROUGH S T S - 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D a v i d A. S t e w a r t , John V. Rakich, and M a r t i n J. Lanfranco ORBITER CATALYTIC/NONCATALYTTC HEAT TRANSFER AS EVIDENCED BY HEATING TO CONTAMINATED SURFACES ON STS-2 AND S T S - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D a v i d A. T h r o c k m o r t o n , E . V i n c e n t Zoby, and H. Harris H a m i l t o n I1

805

827

847

A REVIEW OF NONEQUILIBRIUM EFFECTS AND SURFACE CATALYSIS ON SHUTTLE H E A T I N G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C a r l D. S c o t t F I L L E R BAR HEATING DUE TO STEPPED T I L E S I N THE SHUTTLE ORBITER THERMAL PROTECTION S Y S T E Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . D. H. P e t l e y , D. M. S m i t h , C. L. W. E d w a r d s , A. B. P a t t e n , and H. H. Hamilton I1
LEEWARD CENTERLINE AND S I D E FUSELAGE ENTRY HEATING PREDICTIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE OBTR....................... RIE....................... Vernon T . H e l m s 111

865

891

913

viii

THERMAL PROTECTION Chairpersons: Howard E. G o l d s t e i n , NASA Ames Research C e n t e r R i c h a r d E. Snyder, NASA Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r

SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER REUSABLE SURFACE INSULATION FLIGHT RESULTS. R o b e r t L. D o t t s , James A. Smith, and Donald J. T i l l i a n

............

949

LESSONS LEARNED F O THE DEVELOPMENT AND MANUFACTURE OF CERAMIC REUSABLE RM SURFACE INSULATION MATERIALS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITERS................ Ronald P. Banas, Donald R. E l g i n , Edward R. C o r d i a , Kenneth N N i c k e l , Edward R. Gzowski, and Lawrence A g u i l a r .

967

LIFE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SHUTTLE ORBITER DENSIFIED-TILE THERMAL PROTECTION SSE............................. YTM...........................,. P a u l A. Cooper a nd James Wayne Sawyer
S'KUTTLE TPS THERMAL PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY..................,.. W. E.. Neuenschwander, D. U McBride, and G . A. Armour .
SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER LEADING-EDGE FLIGHT PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO DESIGN GOALS...............,.,..,.......................................... Donald M. C u r r y , David W. Johnson, and R o b e r t E. K e l l y

1009

1025

1065

SPACE SHUTTLE WING LEADING EDGE HEATING ENVIRONMENT PREDICTION EIERIVEII FROM DEVELOPMENT FLIGHT DATA....................................... J o h n A. Cunningham a nd J o s e p h W. Haney, J r .
MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

1083

Chairpersons:

E r n e s t R. N i l l j e , NASA Johnson Space C e n t e r Harold R. Compton, NASA Langley Research C e n t e r 1111

SUBSONIC LONGITUDINAL PERFORMANCE COEFFICIENT EXTRACTION F ROM SHUTTLE FLIGHT DATA . AN ACCURACY ASSESSMENT FOR DETERMINATION OF DATA BASE UPDATES...... . John T . Findlay, G. M 1 Kelly, Judy G. McConnell, e

Harold R. Compton

THE CALIBRATION AND FLIGHT TEST PERFORMANCE OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE YTM.......................... ORBITE'I A I R DATA SSE.......................... Alden S. Dean and A r t h u r L Mena .
COMPILING THE SPACE SHUTTLE' WIND TUNNEL DATA BASE: AN EXERCISE TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL I N V T O S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOAIN.................... N. Dale Kemp
IN

1187

1213

0

SHUTTLE FLIGHT PRESSURE INSTRUMENTATION: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FOR THE FTR............................... UU~.............................. P M. Siemers 111, P F. B r a d l e y , H. Wolf, P. F. F lanagan, . . K. J. W e i l r m e n s t e r , and F. A. Kern
ix

1255

A COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS FOR STS ASCENT AND ENTRY SONIC B O S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ OM............~........~~~..~ Frank G a r c i a , Jr., Jess H. Jones, and Herbert R. H e n d e r s o n SUMMARY S E S S I O N Chairpersons: J a m e s P. Arrington, NASA Langley Research C e n t e r J i m J. Jones, NASA Langley Research C e n t e r

1277

SUMMARY SESSION:

ITOUTO....,................... NRDCIN.......................
FLIGHT-TEST RESULTS........................

1301 1303 1317 1331
1335

AFFTC OVERVIEW OF ORBITER-REENTRY R o b e r t G. H o e y

FLYING THE ORBITER IN THE APPROACH/LANDING Steven R. N a g e l

PHASE..................,..........

THE BEGINNING OF A NEW AERODYNAMIC RESEARCH P R O G E M i l t o n A. S i l v e i r a

...........................

ASCENT AERODYNAMICS I & II................................................... Tru E. S u r b e r and B a r n e y B. R o b e r t s ENTRY AERODYNAMICS I & II.................................................... James C. Y o u n g and D o n a l d C. Schlosser GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION, AND C N R L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OTO......................

1337 1339 1343 1345 1347 1349

Kenneth J. Cox
AEROTHERMAL ENVIRONMENT I.................................................... D o r o t h y B. Lee AEROTHERMAL ENVIRONMENT II................................................... E. V i n c e n t Z o b y THERMAL POETO.............................. RTCIN............................. H o w a r d E. Goldstein MEASUREMENTS AND AAYI.......................... NLSS.......................... E r n e s t R. H i l l j e APPENDIX A: AEROELASTIC CHARACTERISTICS O F THE SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK CABLE T~YS........................................................... L. E. E r i c s s o n and J. P. Reding APPENDIX B: SHUTTLE CARRIER AERODYNAMICS.................................... A l b e r t H. E l d r i d g e APPENDIX C: SPACE SHUTTLE THIRD FLIGHT (STS-3) ENTRY RCS ANALYSIS.. W. I. Scallion, H. R. C o m p t o n , W. T. S u i t , R. W. P o w e l l , T . A. Blackstock, and B. L. B a t e s

1351 1371

.........

1393

X

PLUME BASE FLOW SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY
Barney B . Roberts and Rodney 0. Wallace NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space C e n t e r Houston, Texas Joseph L. Sims Georgia I n s t i t u t e of Tech:iology H u n t s v i l l e , Alabacta
ABSTRACT

'Chis s t u d y was intended t o pursue a combined a n a l y t i c n l / e m p i r i c a l approach i n an cffor:: t o d e f i n e t h e plume s i m u l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s f o r b a s e f l o w . For d e s i g n p u r p o s e s , rocke- e> h a u s t s i r n u l a t i o n ( i . e . , plume s i m u l a t i o n ) i s determined by wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g . C o l d 935 t e s t i n g was concluded t o be a c o s t - a n d scticdulr-effective d a t a b a s c o f s u b s t a n t i a l scope. The r e s u l t s f e l l s h o r t of t.he t a r g e t , a l t h o u g h work coilductet:. was c o n c l u s i v e and advanced t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t . Comparisons of wind t u n n e l p s e d i c t i o n s w i t h Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System (STS) f l i g h t d a t a showed c.orisIderzbie d i f f e r e n c e s . However) a review o f t h e technology program d a t a base' h a s yield(2u an a d d i t i o n a l parameter t h a t may c o r r e l a t e f l i g h t aiid c o l d gas t e s t d a t a . Data i r u c i tiic plume teclinology program and t h e NASA t e s t . f l i g h t s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o s u h s t m t i a t e t h e proposed s i m u l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s .

INTRODUCTION

'The w i d t u n n e l s i m u l a t i o n of exhaust plume e f f e c t s on t h e aerodynamics of rocke:-piwered launch v e h i c l e s has h i s t o r i c a l l y been accomplished by u s i n g c o l d g a s e s
(usually, unheated alr).

Although accurate simulation with h o t gases is current
~ W Oorders

state of t h e a r t , the cost and schedule impacts are one t c

of magnitude

g r e a t e r t.han for t e s t : i n g w i t h c o l d g a s e s . I n a d d i t i o n , d a t a q u a l i t y f o r h o t g a s t e s t i n g i.s l i m i t e d e x t e n s i v e l y because of t h e s h o r t d u r a t i o r . of s t e a d y - s t a t e f l o w (10 - 100 m/secj. Thus, t h e c h o i c e t o be made was betweer: h o t gas s i m u l a t i o n , a costl:!, ].ow q u a l i t y d a t a b a s e of reduced s c o p e , and c o l d g a s s i m u l a t i o n , a c o s t - and sc!icdiile-.et'fccti\ii. d a t a base of s u b s t a n t i a l scope. Cold ?,as t e s t i n g was t h e prefe.rrecl choi.ce by a wide margin, even though t h e s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r s r e q u i r e d t o make ~ 0 1 . c i S a s s i m u l a t e h o t g a s a r e n o t w e l l u n d e r s t o o d . iiocket exhaust e x t e n s i v e l y a f f e c t s t h e b a s e d r a g of a launch v e h i c l e . F o r desigii p u r p o s e s , t h c e f f e c t s a r e determined by wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g . The f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s must be c o n s i d e r e d f o r any aerodynamic t e s t : 1.
3.

Geometrically s c a l e d model
Fr!Je-st-ieani ?!ach number

3.
Boundary l a y e r development (Reynolds number) However, i f t h e r o c k e t exhaust g a s e s a r e t o be s i m u l a t e d a s w e l l , a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s must be c o n s i d e r e d . The exhaust plume phenomena v a r y w i t h i n c r e a s i n g r o c k c t e n g i n e chamber p r e s s u r e ( F i g u r e 1). The plume diameter i s i n i t i a l l y t o o s m a l l t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r t h e forebody p r e s s u r e . Thus, t h e p r i m a r y e f f e c t is t h e e n t r a i n m e n t of t h e base f l o w by t h e h i g h - v e l o c i t y g a s e s i n t h e boundary of t h e plcrnt and t h e subsequent r e d u c t i o n of power-off base p r e s s u r e . As t h e plume grows i n sizz, i t b e g i n s t o b l o c k t h e base and i n c r e a s e t h e base p r e s s u r e . U l t i m a t e l y , t h e b o u n d a ry l a y e r w i l l s e p a r a t e , and a r e c i r c u l a t i n g p a t t e r n w i l l develop. For m u l t i p l e e n g i n e s , t h e plumes w i l l impinge upon each o t h e r and d e f l e c t exhaust flow i n t o t h e b a s e . Three o r more engines can r e v e r s e enough mass i n t o t h e base t o choke t h e volume e n c l o s e d by t h e e n g i n e s . The e f f e c t of t h e plumes can a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e base p r e s s u r e above t h e power-off l e v e l . The f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n o p t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e i n plume s i m u l a t i o n :

1.
2.
3.

Hot g a s , by combustion Cold o r warmiheated gas
S o l i d - b o d y simulator

Hot g a s t e s t i n g can be e l i m i n a t e d a s a v i a b l e o p t i o n when c o s t and complexity A hot g a s model c o s t s 3 t o 10 times more than a c o l d gas model. S h o r t - d u r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s ( d e t o n a t i o n / s h o c k tubes or small s o l i d - p r o p e l l a n t wafers) are r e q u i r e d t o g e n e r a t e t h e h o t g a s , and only t h r e e t o f i v e d a t a p o i n t s may be o b t a i n e d f o r each s h i f t i n t h e t e s t f a c i l i t y . S h o r t - d u r a t i o n p r e s s u r e d a t a a r e a l v a y s of lower q u a l i t y t h a n c o n t i n u o u s p r e s s u r e d a t a . I n a d d i t i o n , s p e c i a l i z e d s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l a r e needed t o implement t h e s h o r t - d u r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s r e q u i r e d f o r hot gas t e s t i n g .
are considered.

The use of a solid-body s i m u l a t o r can a l s o be e l i m i n a t e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The b a s e environment i s n o t known b e f o r e t h e t e s t i n g . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n of t h e plume shape cannot be determined t o enable d e s i g n of t h e s o l i d body. I n a d d i t i o n , a solid-body c o n f i g u r a t i o n cannot respond t o changes i n a n g l e of a t t a c k O K s i d e s l i p ; and f i n a l l y , e n t r a i n m e n t of t h e f r e e - s t r e a m flow and a s p i r a t i o n of t h e b a s e cannot be s i m u l a t e d . Cold gas t e s t i n g i s used a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y f o r launch v e h i c l e plume s i m u l a t i c c . A c o l d g a s model can be o p e r a t e d c o n t i n u o u s l y t o o b t a i n 70 t o 100 d a t a p o i n t s p e r s h i f t i n t h e t e s t f a c i l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e Space S h u t t l e Program chose t h i s t e c h n i q u e t o determine launch v e h i c l e plume e f f e c t s because of c o s t and s c h e d u l e effectiveness

.

T h i s paper d i s c u s s e s t h e development of t h e technology c o r r e l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s used t o d e f i n e t h e plume s i m u l a t i o n parameters and t h e impact of t h e f l i g h t d a t a on t h i s technology program.

2

BACKGROUND

I n 1972, NASA i n i t i a t e d t h e planning phase f o r t h e f i r s t wind t u n n e l t e s t of t h e Space Shut:tle Launch Vehicle (SSLV). A t t h i s time, t h e t e c h n i c a l a r c h i v e s were r;urvey.d t:o determine t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r o c k e t exhaust s i m u l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . Those d a t a a ~ ~ c u n i u l a t e through e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e S a t u r n launch v e h i c l e were chosen f o r d s t u d y . A comparison of t h e wind t u n n e l p r e d i c t i o n s w i t h t h e S a t u r n f l i g h t d a t a i n d i c a t e d a d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e technology a t t h a t time. The base drag was r ; u b s t a : i t i a l l y o v e r e s t i m a t e d by t h e p r e d i c t i o n s from wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g ( F i g u r e 2 ) . F i n a l l , y , t:he surveys concluded t h a t t h e s i m u l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s and t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameters were not w e l l understood. T h e r e f o r e , i n planning t h e t e s t i n g f o r t h e SSLV, the f o l l o w i n g approach was adopted.

1.

For t h e i n i t i a l SSLV t e s t , model n o z z l e s were designed and t e s t c o n d i t i o n s were chosen such t h a t t h e cold g a s plume shape matched t h e a n a l y t i c a l e s t i m a t e s of f l i g h t plume shape. S i m u l t a n e o u s l y , a technology program was i n i t i a t e d t o e n a b l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g
o f t h e f l o w phenomena and develop a s e t of s i m u l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s .

2.
3.

These f i n d i n g s were i n p u t i n t o subsequent SSLV t e s t s .

The c u r r e n t s t a t u s of t h e technology program i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d a s "termi.iatcd incomplete." The technology program ( F i g u r e 3 ) y i e l d e d s u b s t a n t i a l knowledge on how t o c o r r e l a t e t h e c o l d gas base p r e s s u r e . The simultaneous evolvement of t h e technology program and t h e SSLV program a r e shown i n Table I. Note t h a t t h e l a s t output from t h e technology program d i d n o t f e e d i n t o t h e SSLV t e s t prcgrain, i c i r c u m s t a n c e of t h e technology learning c u r v e and t h e SSLV t e s t program t i m i n g . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y an assessment of t h e l a t e s t technology could be made a t t h a t time. The r e s u l t was a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p r e d i c t e d and t h e a c t u a l f l i g h t SSLV base p r e s s u r e . TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The o b j e c t i v e of the technology program was t o d e t e r m i n e a se t o f functions t h a t

would r o r r e l a t e b a s e pressure d a t a g e n e r a t e d by wind t u n n e l cold g a s tests with f u l l scale j - l i g h t base p r e s s u r e . A s u b s t a n t i a l e m p i r i c a l d a t a base was o b t a i n e d u s i n g g e n e r i c models w i t h some geometry v a r i a t i o n s t o a s s e s s c o n f i g u r a t i o n e f f e c t s on t h e base p r e s s u r e . The key independent v a r i a b l e s were s i m u l a t e d g a s , n o z z l e geometry, and geometric c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Hot, warm, and c o l d g a s e s were used. I n most c o l d and warm g a s technology t e s t s , a i r was t h e simulated g a s ; i n some i n s t a n c e s , however, Freon 1:CF4) was used because i t s v a r i a t i o n of t h e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s through t h e

exhausl: plume was s i m i l a r t o a p r o t o t y p e f u l l - s c a l e r o c k e t engine. The h o t g a s e s f o r t h e technology t e s t s were g e n e r a t e d by burning s o l i d p r o p e l l a n t c h a r g e s i n t h e models. Simulated model n o z z l e a r e a r a t i o s and n o z z l e l i p a n g l e s v a r i e d from t e s t t o t e s t , a s s u r i n g t h a t i n t e r n a l geometry was n o t an e x p l i c i t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n s . The e x t e r n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( F i g u r e 3 ) c o n s i s t e d o f : 1, Cone or o g i v e noses and c y l i n d r i c a l a f t e r b o d i e s w i t h s i n g l e o r t r i p l e nozzle bases.

3

2.

A t r i p l e - b o d y c o n f i g u r a t i o n , used t o assess t h e e f f e c t s on t h e c e n t e r body ( s i m i l a r t o t h e E x t e r n a l Tank on t h e Space S h u t t l e ) .

D i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered i n c o r r e l a t i n g t h e plume technology t e s t d a t a because of l i m i t e d v a r i a t i o n s i n n o z z l e geometry and t e s t c o n d i t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e d e c i s i o n was made t o supplement t h e d a t a base w i t h a n a l y s i s . The Addy program' was used as a c o n t r o l l e d experiment t o g e n e r a t e a d d i t i o n a l d a t a . The s u b s t a n t i a l e m p i r i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l d a t a base g e n e r a t e d throughout t h i s technology program w a s t h e n a n a l y z e d f o r c o r r e l a t i o n by p l o t t i n g t h e base p r e s s u r e d a t a as a f u n c t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e c a n d i d a t e s i m u l a t i o n parameters. The s u c c e s s f u l s i m u l a t i o n parameters were t h o s e t h a t would c o a l e s c e t h e base p r e s s u r e d a t a t o a s i m p l e f u n c t i o n of t h e assumed s i m u l a t i o n parameter. An example of a "winning" s e t of parameters i s shown i n F i g u r e 4. These parameters are d e f i n e d i n F i g u r e 5 . The r e s u l t s from t h e Addy program ( F i g u r e 6 ) demonstrate t h e f a i l u r e of t h e i n i t i a l expansion a n g l e , 6 j, t o c o r r e l a t e t h e d a t a . I f t h e plume boundary Mach number, M

i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n i s jy remarkably improved ( F i g u r e 6 ( b ) ) . However, a l l c a s e s shown i n t h e s e two f i g u r e s Notice i n F i g u r e 6 ( c ) how t h e have t h e same one-dimensional e x i t Mach number, Mex.

d a t a are once a g a i n u n c o r r e l a t e d when M

i s allowed t o v a r y . Obviously, t h e ex c o r r e l a t i o n parameter must a l s o c o n t a i n M ex as a v a r i a b l e . T h i s approach w a s
c o n t i n u e d u n t i l it became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e s i m u l a t i o n had t h e form

T h i s knowledge was t h e n a p p l i e d t o t h e technology program test d a t a . Proceeding i n a s i m i l a r manner w i t h t h e technology t e s t d a t a , t h e r e s u l t s The r e s u l t s p l o t t e d i n F i g u r e 7 ( b ) ( F i g u r e 7 a ) show only a f a i r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h 6

j*

show t h a t

M.6. c o r r e l a t e s t h e d a t a w i t h t h e same e x i t Mach number.
J J

The e f f e c t of t h e

exponent €or y

j

e q u a l t o u n i t y i s shown i n F i g u r e 7 ( c ) .

Assigning 0.5 as t h e v a l u e

of t h i s exponent r e s u l t s i n t h e e x c e l l e n t c o r r e l a t i o n q u a l i t y p r e v i o u s l y shown i n Figure 4.
The f i n a l r e s u l t of t h i s a n a l y s i s was t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a p r e l i m i n a r y t a b l e of s i m u l a t i o n parameters (Table 11) f o r t h e SSLV. The c a v e a t , however, i s t h a t n e i t h e r t h e h o t gas technology t e s t nor t h e h o t gas a n a l y t i c a l d a t a from t h e Addy program a g r e e w i t h t h e SSLV parameters i n Table 11. Much of t h e h o t gas t e s t d a t a was of q u e s t i o n a b l e q u a l i t y and had t o be d i s c a r d e d ; however, t h e few d a t a p o i n t s a v a i l a b l e show a d e f i n i t e o f f s e t from t h e c o l d and warm gas d a t a ( F i g u r e SI. T h i s e f f e c t was s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h t h e Addy Obviously, a n a d d i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n of ( T IT I C i s r e q u i r e d t o c tf u l l y c o r r e l a t e t h e d a t a . These d a t a came t o o l a t e i n t h e program t o impact any SSLV t e s t i n g ; f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e d a t a p o i n t s were t o o s p o t t y t o e x t r a p o l a t e t o a l l Mach numbers and base c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . program ( F i g u r e 9 ) .
4

A t e m p e r a t u r e c o r r e c t i o n w a s n o t i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e SSLV aerodynamic d a t a b a s e ; t h e e f f e c t of excluding t h i s c o r r e c t i o n would be an under p r e d i c t i o n of t h e f l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e w i t h a r e s u l t i n g u n d e r e s t i m a t e of v e h i c l e performance and a c o n s e r v a t i v e p r e d i c t i o n f o r SSLV performance design. The SSLV c o l d gas d a t a base was c o t updated f o r t h e temperature e f f e c t s noted i n F i g u r e s 8 and 9 because of SSLV s c h e d u l e and r e s o u r c e r e s t r i c t i o n s and because t h e h o t g a s e f f e c t i s c o n s e r v a t i v e . Temperature c o r r e l a t i o n is f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n F l i g h t Data Comparison.
SSLV TEST DATA CORRELATION
The SSLV t e s t d a t a was a c q u i r e d i n t h e U n i t a r y Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) a t Ames Research C e n t e r (ARC) , M o f f e t t F i e l d , C a l i f o r n i a . The f a c i l i t y has t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o supply secondary a i r a t a flow r a t e of 10,342.5 k i l o p a s c a l s (1500 p s i ) and 36.3 k.g/sec (80 l b / s e c ) f o r p r o p u l s i o n system s i m u l a t i o n . I n F i g u r e 1 0 , t h e model i s shown i n s t a l l e d i n t h e ARC UEWT 11 by 11 t e s t s e c t i o n . Condensation i n t h e g a s caused t h e s i m u l a t e d exhaust t o be v i s i b l e i n t h e photograph. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e key t o t h e t e c h n i q u e of base p r e s s u r e c o r r e l a t i o n i s t h a t t h e s.imulation parameters (Table 11) are a f u n c t i o n of t h e base p r e s s u r e i t s e l f . For example, 6 . and M. a r e dependent on t h e Prandtl-Meyer expansion a t t h e n o z z l e l i p and J 3 t h e r e f o r e , p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e base p r e s s u r e and t h e s q u a r e r o o t of t h e base p r e s s u r e r e s p e c t i v e l y . Consequently, i f t h e base p r e s s u r e i s n o t knovn a p r i o r i , t h e c o r r e c t E:iinulation i n t h e wind t u n n e l is impossible t o e s t a b l i s h . The technique used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e base p r e s s u r e i s as f o l l o w s . 1. A v a r i a t i o n of t h e base p r e s s u r e i s o b t a i n e d by a v a r i a t i o n of t h e s i m u l a t e d a i r s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e and t h e t u n n e l t o t a l p r e s s u r e . The v a r i a t i o n of t h e base p r e s s u r e from t h e wind t u n n e l t e s t i s p l o t t e d a s a f u n c t i o n of t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter. See curve A i n F i g u r e 11.

2.

3.

A similar c u r v e can be a n a l y t i c a l l y d e r i v e d f o r t h e f u l l s c a l e p r o t o t y p e by
assuming a b a s e p r e s s u r e ( c u r v e B, Figure 11). This c u r v e r e p r e s e n t s t h e l o c i of possible v a l u e s of t h e similarity parameters for the prototype as a f u n c t i o n of b a s e p r e s s u r e .

4.

Where t h e c u r v e of p r o t o t y p e p o s s i b i l i t i e s is equal t o t h e wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a , t h e s i m i l a r i t y i s matched, and t h e r e s u l t i n g base p r e s s u r e i s t h e design value.

This t e c h n i q u e evolved from t h e plume technology program and t h e e a r l y SSLV t e s t s and has been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e JANNAF Rocket Exhaust Plume Technology Handbook.2 E'igure 12. The f i n a l r e s u l t s of a p p l y i n g t h i s t e c h n i q u e t o t h e SSLV are shown i n

FLIGHT DATA COMPARISONS

A s e x p e c t e d , t h e f l i g h t base p r e s s u r e d a t a from STS-2, 3 , and 5 were g r e a t e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d . A comparison of t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a and t h e f l i g h t d a t a is shown i n

5

F i g u r e 13. The t o t a l i n t e g r a t e d e f f e c t of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s e q u i v a l e n t t o an a d d i t i o n a l 453.6 kilograms (1000 pounds) of payload t h a t can be d e l i v e r e d t o low E a r t h o r b i t ( i . e . , a c i r c u l a r o r b i t of 277.8 k i l o m e t e r s (150 n a u t i c a l m i l e s ) ) . The d i s c o v e r y was made l a t e i n t h e technology program t h a t a t e m p e r a t u r e c o r r e c t i o n was needed t o f u l l y c o r r e l a t e t h e base p r e s s u r e d a t a . The technology d a t a was r e p r o c e s s e d t o determine i f i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e temperature e f f e c t i n t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n would r e s u l t i n matching f l i g h t and t e s t d a t a . Using t h e d a t a i n F i g u r e

8 , a temperature c o r r e l a t i o n f a c t o r of (T T 1o.081 w a s determined and a p p l i e d t o t h e c tm SSLV wind t u n n e l test d a t a a s shown i n F i g u r e 14. (The c o r r e c t i o n could only be a p p l i e d t o t h e s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r (SRB) base because of t h e l i m i t e d technology h o t gas d a t a and t h e l i m i t e d SSLV wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a . ) The e f f e c t of t h e c o r r e c t i o n and t h e comparison w i t h t h e f l i g h t d a t a f o r t h e SRB b a s e , a t Mach = 1 . 2 5 , a r e shown i n F i g u r e 15. On t h i s f i g u r e , t h e o r i g i n a l p r e - f l i g h t d a t a a c q u i r e d i n t h e wind The f l a g g e d t u n n e l i s th,e lower p l o t l a b e l e d "SSLV SRB base p r e s s u r e t e s t data". c i r c l e s a r e t h e a c t u a l d a t a a c q u i r e d i n t h a t t e s t . Note t h a t t h e l a s t t e s t d a t a p o i n t was taken a t a v a l u e of 85 f o r t h e s i m i l a r i t y parameter. Although t h e o r i g i n a l d a t a completely b r a c k e t s t h e o r i g i n a l c o l d flow p o s s i b i l i t y c u r v e , e x t r a p o l a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o i n t e r s e c t t h e new p o s s i b i l i t y curve w i t h t h e h o t g a s c o r r e c t i o n . When t h i s h o t g a s c o r r e c t i o n i s a p p l i e d t o t h e SRB p r e d i c t i o n a c r o s s t h e Mach range € o r which d a t a is a v a i l a b l e , t h e wind t u n n e l p r e d i c t i o n s more c l o s e l y match the f l i g h t data as shown i n Figure 15.
Now, t h e obvious t h i n g t o do would be t o r e v i s i t t h e plume technology and c o l d g a s wind t u n n e l t e s t programs, and complete t h e base flow technology, so t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n would n o t be l o s t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , a d d i t i o n a l h o t g a s d a t a on t h e technology models, a n a l y s i s and c o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s d a t a t o o b t a i n t h e h o t g a s c o r r e c t i o n t e r m s , and a SSLV c o l d g a s t e s t t o confirm t h e s i m u l a t i o n of t h e f l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e s i n t h e wind t u n n e l is needed. To d a t e , r e s o u r c e s have not been s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a p r o p o s a l of t h i s magnitude; however, some a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i n g w i t h t h e SSLV c o n f i g u r a t i o n has been accomplished. The o b j e c t i v e of t h e s e t e s t s was t o v a r y t h e plume s i m u l a t i o n and model n o z z l e parameters u n t i l t h e f l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e s were r e c r e a t e d i n t h e wind t u n n e l . 'The d a t a from t h i s t e s t were i n a n a l y s i s a t t h e t i m e of t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n and o n l y p r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s are a v a i l a b l e . These r e s u l t s a r e p l o t t e d on F i g u r e 15. F i r s t , n o t e t h a t t h e new d a t a was intended t o b r a c k e t t h e f l i g h t d a t a ( i n d i c a t e d by a band of v a l u e s on F i g u r e 1 4 ) . T h i s r e s u l t s i n a much h i g h e r v a l u e f o r t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter. Second, n o t e t h a t t h e low v a l u e s of SSME s i m u l a t i o n (which a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l SSLV t e s t ) j u s t i f y a l i n e a r e x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l SRB base p r e s s u r e f o r i n c r e a s i n g SRB s i m u l a t i o n parameter. And l a s t , t h e r e can be a f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t h e SSME on SRB base p r e s s u r e than w a s o r i g i n a l l y e x p e c t e d , e s p e c i a l l y a t low v a l u e s of t h e SRB s i m i l a r i t y parameter where t h e SSME can become t h e dominant i n f l u e n c e . A l l t h e s e e f f e c t s cannot be c l e a r l y u n t a n g l e d from each o t h e r without some a d d i t i o n a l plume s i m u l a t i o n technology development. However, t h e t r e n d s do support t h e temperature c o r r e c t i o n developed from t h e l i m i t e d hot gas technology d a t a .

6

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The optimum similarity parameter €or wind tunnel testing for launch vehicle base pressure measurements is :

where a, b, and c are weak functions of geometry. :?he following recommendations are made. I..
2!.

The technology program should be revived to generate a more extensive data ‘base for the purpose of assessing the variables a, b , and especially c .
Upon completion of the technology program, the SSLV model should be retested at the ARC UPWT to confirm that the simulation parameters w i l l indeed recreate the flight base pressures.

.
7

SYMBOLS

C

F M N
P

T

Y
6

0

Coef€ ic ient function of force Mach number nozzle pres sure temperature ratio of specific heats initial expansion angle of gas lip angle

Superscripts: a,b,c undetermined exponents, functions of geometric configuration Subscripts: axial B base c chamber ex exit j plume boundary N nozzle p pressure t total of stagnation free stream
A

REFERENCES

1.

Addy, A. L.: Analysis of the Axisymmetric Base Pressure and Base Temperature Problem with Supersonic Interacting Freestream Nozzle Flows Based on the Flow Model of Korst, et al, Part 111: A Computer Program and Representative Results for Cylindrical, Boatailed, or Flared Afterbodies. Army Missile Command Report No. RD-TR-69-14, Feb. 1970. Rocket Exhaust Plume Technology, JANNAF Handbook. Chemical P r o p u l s i o n Information Agency (CPIA) publication 263, ch. 5, s e c . 5. 8, J u l y 1981, pp. 5.8-1 to
5.8-39.

2.

a

e

TABLE I .

EVOLVEMENT OF PLUME TECHNOLOGY AND THE SSLV P R U C M M

Development phase

C o r r e 1 a t ion parameter? Plume shape

S5L i/ t e s t
ident i f i r a t i o t l

H i s t o r y and i n t u i t i o n
P 1ume t e c h n o 1ogy t e s t s and a n a l y s e s

1A2. 1A7. 1A122.

lAI>f, 1A19

o o o o
o

C o l d rlas Warm gas CF S i f f a l e bodv Single and-nullinozzle T r i p l e body Solid propellants T r i p l e body w i t h s o l i d p r ope 11a n t s

E . , 6./y. J J J

1A80. IA92B. lA!;?C,

lA72

o
o

6 .y b
~j

1A119. !A133

o

TABLE 11.

CORRELATION PARAME'l'bilS
I -

M,
S i n g l e body. s i n g l r nozzle

Configuration S i n g l e body, t r i p l e iozzle
M.r J 'J

T r i o l e body

09 .

. M.6

J J

MO. 25
ex

'j

..0.25 "?x 'j

1.2
@.25
ex 1.46

1dj6j 0.5
yj

MO. 25 ex 'j

M.6.

J J

M 0.5

~j
25y

.6

,0 5 .. 2
ex j '

;:M

3.48

M .E .
J J

M.S.

J J

Y.

J

j '

9

0

CHAMBERPRESURE.PC

-

F i g u r e 1.- Base f l o w - eshaiis: plume phenomena.

2.0
1.6

1

SPREAD OF FLIGHT RESULTS

,/

1.2
.8

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

1

I

.4

-8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

1 4.0

MACH NUMBER, M ,
F i g u r e 2.10

C o m p a r i s o n of S a t u r n V t e s t and f l i g h t d a t a .

ORIGINAL PAGE
AIR A N D CF4

I$

OF POOR QUALITY

1A I 0F

_ _ _ _ _ _ I _ - -

----___-~
APR 1974

'

FA6

-_

FA15

-0 0

S f P T 1973

AUG 1974

M A Y 1977

7 CONSTANT VERSUS VARIABLE T, COLD VERSUSWARM VERSUS

HOT SOLID PROPELLAN1
I

0

M C FC TWT

ARCGBY6

1

0

AEDC4T

0

-__

3

0 0

SINGLE- A N D TWO-PHASE FLOW SlNGLE/THREE NOZZLE NOZZLE GEOMETRY SUBSONIC HYPERSONIC
ORBITER/SRB

\?a* F
JitN 1474

.
OVESTIONABLE DATA

FA7 ALJG 1974

FA22 JULY 1975

'

I

(a) Basic test program.

____

AIR AND CF4

SOLID PROPELLANT

0

. . - _

p

_

p

_

_

_

'-1-

0
.

SINGLE VERSUS TWO PHASE FLOW MULTIPLE BASE

AUG 1974 LU€STIONABLE D A T A

OCT 1975

A I R COLD
- 1

i_-_

FA16

1

JAN 1974 AIR 4 N D CF4 MSFC DVT
I

'I

I

---I
I
P

<r-:--. . -25
.. ..... . .I-.

!

._. FA19

'

1

0

FLARE EFFECT CONSTANT VERSUS) VARIABLE S A 6 S K I R T FLAKE
'7

JULY 1977

( b ) Supplementary test program.

Figure 3.- SSLV plume simulation program.

5 1.1 m
L

8

e +
a
a W a
3
v) v)

1.0
.9 .8 .7

W

K
CL

W

cn
. 6
.5

tIll,

AJA" = AREA RATIO

t 90 100

I 110
Mj dj

I 120

I
130
, DEG

I
140

I
145

$37Ma

F i g u r e 4 . - Example of a s u c c e s s f u l simulation parameter:
= 1.46.

L -

I

'Figure 5.- D e f i n i t i o n of t h e parameters.

12

a
81.1
$ 2

a 1.0 .

I?

2
6
YI K

.n
J

2

.!
m

.7

5
A
40 45

sr( a ) I n i t i a l plume a n g l e c o r r e l a t i o n .

UA.

0

AREA RATIO

5
.4 400

150

9OrDEG

Bo

250

3m

(b) C o r r e l a t i o n of w a l l a n g l e e f f e c t .

E x i t Mach number, Mex, e f f e c t s : e = 150.
F i g u r e 6.- Addy program r e s u l t s :

y = 1.4,

Mm

=

2.00.
13

(a) C o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n i t i a l expansion angle, 6 j .

SYMBOL

----NOZZLE

GAS AIR

AJA.

8~

4

65

35

Y

UI

2

AIA'

6 I I 1 I I I

-

AREA RATIO

I

I

I

I

(b) C o r r e l a t e d with t h e e x i t Mach number.

SYMBOL NOZZLE -___

GAS
AIR

AIA.

eN
35

4
1.1

r

m

2

AIR

6.5 35

25

AIA'

-

AREARATIO

I

W

m

100

110

110

130

T'_
DCC
1 ',

(c) E f f e c t of the exponent of 6-j e q u a l t o u n i t y .

F i g u r e 7 . - Experimental d a t a r e s u l t s :
14

Mm

=

1.45.

1.2

-

e

4X

rn

.
a
a
v)

1.1

n8 n 1.0 m

P k

.9 .8

+
v
0

A

2 1 5
6

AIR AIR CF4 a16%AL a2%AL a16%AL

6.5 3.5
80

35 25 15
15 15
15

80
8.0

/

..si

7

4.0

%/'

HO HOT GAS TEST

3
v)

-

P a '

COLDNVARM

w

a

.7
.6

n

3
I
40

AIA" = AREA RATIO

I
80

I
100

1 4
120
140

60

F i g u r e 8.- Experimental d a t a r e s u l t s :

Ma, = 1 . 2 .

1.0

.4

60

I 70

I 80

I
90

I
100

I

I

110 120

I 13D

I 140

I
150

I
160

Mj 6,
M5 :f i

, DEG

F i g u r e 9.- Addy program r e s u l t s temperature e f f e c t

.

-

chamber

15

ORIaNAL PAST E OF POOR QUALITY

F i g u r e 10.- Plume t e s t showing t h e model i n s t a l l e d i n the ARC UPWT 11 by 11 t r a n s o n i c w i n d t u n n e l .

POSSIBILITIES

m n

A

E
v)

20
w

y
WIND TUNNEL

cc
w

TEST DATA

P
v)

3

M = CONSTANT ,
Mj 6 j

SIMULATION PAR AM ETER,

Me,

a b Yj

Figure 11.- P l o t of t h e t e c h n i q u e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e s i g n v a l u e f o r base pressure.

16

e
f U
c)

48 1 (160

I

I

42.6 141 10

I I

I
1
I \
\
\
\
\

36 6 IlZOl

30.4

1100,

fr

SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS I 1 2

ORBITER

n o

P E

-

2. 4P I801

ru’

?
18.3
(601

12.2
140)
\

61

I201

0

I
0 1401

-lR.l

18.1 (40)

36.3
1801

54.4 11201

72.6
11601

90.7
(2001

108.9
(2401

127 0
12801

145.2
13201

163.3
13601

FA BASE.

lo3 kg (lo3 LEI

F i g u r e 1 2 . - Power e f f e c t s on base a x i a l f o r c e .

u)

3.0

---.-

m

1

w

0

a

--------

AERO STS-5 STS-3 STS-2

DESIGN DATA BASE-2L CONVERTED TO ERM 3A CONVERTED TO BRM 3A CONVERTED TO BRM 3A

0 2.0
LL
1

9
K
4

1 .o

0.0

-1.0

0.0

*
1

I

I

1

I

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

x104

ALTITUDE-FT

Figures 13.- F i r s t s t a g e v e h i c l e b a s e f o r c e

-

f l i g h t versus p r e d i c t i o n comparison.
17

1.2

5
4 1.0

0
W K

2
W U

3

.8
SSLV SRB BASE
SYMBOL LEGEND

n

w

v)

.7
.6
I

d

ORIGINAL

a m

0 SSME=L'

b SSMEZ62 A SSME = 9 2 3 SSME=l:C5
I

65

70

80

I 90

1 100

I . _ 2 iin 120

F i g u r e 14.-

SSLV experiment d a t a r e s u l t s and f l i g h t comparison

2.0
\

n

8
1.5

---STS-1
H O T FLOW (COLD FLOW CORRECTED) -----COLD FLOW (ORIGINAL)
/
/ -

0 .

rn

, .

0
K
CT

IQ
UJ

1.0

\
\ - # -

3
v)
v)
0

c--

_---

e--

u
0 .

CT

.5

w
v)

a

m

I
.5
1.o 1.5
2.0
L.Z
m c

0

MACH NUMBER, M ,
F i g u r e 15.- STS-1 SRB b a s e p r e s s u r e compared hot-flow p r e d i c t i o n s .
18
P :

colt-

G?:!

LALINCH VEHICLE AEROUYNAI’I~C’ DX’I’A BASE DEVELOPMENT
CONPAKlSON WITH FLIGHT DATA

.I. 7 . H a n i l t o n Space Transrwl-t<lLi o r ‘ind Systems Group Roclrwel i I n t e r n c i t i o n a l
DLvncI:,

Cal i f o r n i a

R . 0 . Wallace Systems Engineering D i v i s i o n NASA Jolinson Space Center Houston, Texas
i . I)il.! A L’t i t y i c s Di v i s i o n e NASA IlarslialLL Space F l i g h t Center Huiitsvi.ll e , Alabariia
: I

.)

The aerodynamic development plan f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e i n t e g r a t e d v e h i c l e had t h r e e major o b j e c t i v e s . The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e was t o support t h e e v o l u t i o n of t h e b a s i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n by e s t a b l i s h i n g aerodynamic impacts t o v a r i o u s c a n d i d a t e configurations. The second o b j e c t i v e w a s t o providc c o n r i n u i n g e v a l u a t i o n of t h e b a s i c aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n o r d e r t o :,ring about a mature d a t a base. The t h i r d t a s k W Z S development of t h e element a n d component aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s t r i b u t e d a i r l o a d s d a t a t o s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r a l l o a d s a n a l y s e s . The complexity of t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s rendered c o n v e n t i o n a l a n a l y t i c methods o f l i t t l e use and t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g of d e t a i l e d complex models. However, t h e ground t e s t i n g and a n a l y s e s d i d n o t p r e d i c t t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were e x t r a c t e d from t h e Space S h u t t l e f l i g h t t e s t program. F u t u r e programs t h a t i n v o l v e t h e u s e of v e h i c l e s similar t o t h e Space S h u t t l e should be concerned w i t h t h e couplex flow fields characteris tic of these t y p e s of complex configurations.
INTRODUCTION

1970’s.

The Space S h u t t l e aerodynamic d a t a base development w a s i n i t i a t e d i n t h e e a r l y Systems r e q u i r e m e n t s d e f i n e d aerodynamic i n p u t s f o r v e h i c l e performance a n a l y s e s , s t r u c t u r a l l o a d s a n a l y s e s , s e p a r a t i o n systems a n a l y s e s , a e r o h e a t i n g a n a l y s e s , and more d e t a i l e d i n p u t s f o r t i l e l o a d s and v e n t i n g . This paper d i s c u s s e s the development of t h e Space S h u t t l e aerodynamic d a t a b a s e for v e h i c l e performance and s t r u c t u r a l l o a d s a n a l y s e s .

19

SYMBOLS
V a l u e s a r e g i v e n in both t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S y s t e m o f U n i t s ( S I ) and

customary u n i t s . units.
C

U. S . The measurements and c a l c u l a t i o n s were made i n U. S . customary

t y p i c a l aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t

i

i n c i d e n c e a n g l e between o r b i t e r and e x t e r n a l t a n k (ET), deg (deg) dynamic p r e s s u r e , kg/m2 ( l b s / f t 2 ) s t a t i o n , along a x i a l a x i s , m ( i n . ) s t a t i o n along v e r t i c a l a x i s , m ( i n . ) a n g l e of p i t c h , deg ( d e g ) a n g l e of s i d e s l i p , deg (deg) c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l a n g l e , deg (deg)

q

X
Z

a
B

Q
Subscripts:
0

orbiter exter nal tank

T

SPACE SHUTTLE CONFIGURATION EVOLUTION

E v o l u t i o n of t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Space S h u t t l e i s shown i n f i g u r e 1 w i t h major changes noted. The changes shown were n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o aerodynanic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l o n e ; however, the emphasis from a n aerodynamic v i e w p o i n t w a s t o reduce wing l o a d s , reduce i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s , r e d u c e d r a g , and r e d u c e plume e f f e c t s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e i n i t i a l wind t u n n e l t e s t s were designed t o p r o v i d e p a r a m e t r i c s t u d i e s which would y i e l d aerodynamic i n p u t s f o r t h e configurat i o n evolution.

DATA

BASE DEVELOPMENT

I n i t i a l emphasis w a s p l a c e d on t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments. P r e l i m i n a r y t e s t s were run a t t h e Marshall Space F l i g h t C e n t e r ' s Trisonic Wind Tunnel (MSFC TVT) f a c i l i t y u s i n g s e v e r a l 0.4 p e r c e n t models. These e a r l y t e s t s included v a r i o u s p a r a m e t r i c s t u d i e s t o determine an a c c e p t a b l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n of t h e elements. These s t u d i e s included s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r (SRB) placement ( f i g . 2 ) , SREi a f t s k i r t o u t e r m o l d l i n e (OML) geometry (fig. 3 ) , e x t e r n a l t a n k (ET)/SRB nose p r o f i l e s ( f i g . 4 ) , o r b i t e r i n c i d e n c e and i n i t i a l v e r t i c a l placement r e l a t i v e t o t h e ET c e n t e r l i n e ( f i g . 5 ) , and model s t i n g placement ( f i g . 6 ) .

20

As t h e d e s i g n of t h e v e h i c l e evolved, t h e need f o r h i g h e r f i d e l i t y models, more i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , and a h i g h e r degree of d a t a accuracy i n c r e a s e d . The i n c r e a s e d emphasis on t h e aerodynamic d a t a base was prompted by s e v e r a l d e s i g n problems. T y p i c a l of t h e s e problems were: wing/elevon l o a d s , a t t a c h s t r u c t u r e l o a d s , v e r t i c a l t a i l l o a d s , v e n t i n g , and l o c a l p r e s s u r e d e f i n i t i o n . These problems prompted emphasis of t h e aerodynamic d e f i n i t i o n t o be moved from t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e t o t h e elements ( o r b i t e r , ET, and SRB's) and components (wing, e l e v o n , and v e r t i c a l t a i l ) , p r o v i d i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f o r c e s , moments, and p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s where applicable.
I n 1976, a series of wind t u n n e l t e s t s were performed a t t h e Ames Research C e n t e r ' s U n i t a r y P l a n Wind Tunnel ( A R C UPWT) f a c i l i t y u s i n g a 3.0-percent model which was supported by f o u r s t i n g s ( f i g . 7 ) . I n t h i s s e r i e s , f o r c e s , moments, and p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were determined f o r t h e o r b i t e r , ET, SRB's, wing, e l e v o n s , and v e r t i c a l t a i l . Since t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e f o r c e s and moments were not measured d i r e c t l y , a series of t e s t s w e r e conducted a t t h e Langley Research Center (LaRC) Eight-Foot Wind 'runnel and a t t h e U n i t a r y Plan Wind Tunnel f a c i l i t i e s u s i n g a 1.0p e r c e i t model which w a s supported by a s i n g l e s t i n g through t h e base of t h e o r b i t e r model ( l o c a t e d f o r l c a s t i n t e r f e r e n c e a s determined from e a r l i e r s t u d i e s ) . Diff e r e n c e s were noted i n t h e f o r c e s and moments measured d i r e c t l y i n t h e LaRC t e s t r e l a t i v e t o t h e :3um of t h e elements from the ARC t e s t . A n a l y s i s a t t r i b u t e d t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s t o siring i n t e r f e r e n c e and blockage from t h e f o u r s t i n g s and t h e c l o s e proximity of t h e s t i n g mounting hardware t o t h e base of t h e model i n t h e ARC t e s t .
The LaRC t e s t s a l s o measured elevon hinge moments along w i t h t h e s h e a r , bending, and t o r s i o n of t h e wing p a n e l . During t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e , loads a n a l y s i s of t h e wing showed t h a t t h e elevon a c t u a t o r c a p a b i l i t y was exceeded a s a r e s u l t of t h e miignitude of t h e elevon h i n g e moment. This r e q u i r e d a n a l y s i s of d a t a from t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a bases t o f i n d a w a y t o r e l i e v e t h e problem. An elevon d e f l e c t i o n s c h e d u l e was d e r i v e d a s a r e s u l t of t h i s a n a l y s i s which would m a i n t a i n tne e l e v o n hinge moment n e a r z e r o and, at t h e same t i m e , keep t h e wing panel l o a d s w i t h i n l i m i t ( f i g . 8). As a s a f e t y measure, an a c t i v e load r e l i e f system was designed which would m a i n t a i n t h e hinge moment l e v e l w i t h i n t h e a c t u a t o r c a p a b i l i t i e s . Since s t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e was a f f e c t i n g t h e aerodynamics of t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e , emphasis was p l a c e d on d e s i g n i n g models which could be mounted from a s i n g l e s t i n g through the orbiter base and have t h e c a p a b i l i t y of measuring t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e , elemerit, and component f o r c e s , moments, and base p r e s s u r e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ( f i g . 9 ) . One such model w a s i n i t i a l l y f a b r i c a t e d t o a 1 - 0 - p e r c e n t scale and t e s t e d a t t h e ARC UPWT f a c i l i t y . This t e s t demonstrated t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of t h e d e s i g n concept a s w e l l a s v e r i f i e d t h e prognosis of t h e s t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e a f f e c t i n g t h e aerodynamics. However, some problems e x i s t e d w i t h t h i s new model due p r i m a r i l y t o i t s s c a l e , e.g., b a l a n c e f o u l i n g and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n r o u t i n g . These problems were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced i n t h e 2.0-percent h i g h - f i d e l i t y v e r s i o n of t h i s d e s i g n . A t e s t was conducted i n t h e 16T P r o p u l s i o n Wind Tunnel f a c i l i t y a t Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) u t i l i z i n g t h i s 2.0-percent model. Examination of t h e r e s u l t i n g d a t a r e v e a l e d problems w i t h t h e flow a n g u l a r i t y encountered from t h e 16T f a c i l i t y quick-turn s t i n g mounting s y s t e m ( f i g . 10). A flow a n g u l a r i t y t e s t was conducted. and t h e Droblem w a s e r a d i c a t e d (fie. 11'1.

21

These problems were not peculiar to the force and moment models only. The pressure models were also susceptible to similar problems which rendered the pressure distribution data base questionable until model and facility corrections were made. The sting interference problem was resolved by mounting the model on two stings, one in the base of each SRB. A three-percent high-fidelity pressure model was designed which incorporated some of the concepts used in the two percent model (fig. 12). This allowed the orbiter and component forces and moments to be measured simultaneously with approximately 1500 pressure measurements covering the total vehicle. The sting interference question was thus eliminated relative to the orbiter. The only problem encountered on the new three-percent model was with balance stiffness, which caused an orbiter roll misalignment. The two- and threepercent models were tested at AEDC and ARC to obtain the aerodynamic forcefmoment and pressure distribution power-off data bases for the first Space Transportation System (STS-1) flight. Coincident with the power-off testing program was the power-on program which was initiated with a plume technology study at MSFC to define plume similarity parameters for use in plume simulation tests on the Space Shuttle. The resulting similarity parameters were incorporated in the wind tunnel model nozzle design and test planning. Several cold-flow plume tests were conducted to define the solid rocket motor (SRM) and Space Shuttle main engine (SSME) plume effects on the vehicle pressure distributions. Data obtained from these tests included base pressures, nozzle airloads, forebody plume effects, throttling, and angle-ofattacklsideslip effects. The test results indicated that the only significant effect to forebody aerodynamics was on the inboard elevons (fig. 13). These data were formatted, along with the power-off data, for use by the various design disciplines for structural and trajectory design analyses leading to the first Space Shuttle launch.
POSTFLIGHT COMPARISONS

Postflight extraction of the aerodynamic forces and moments from STS-1 revealed that significant differences existed from the baseline longitudinal forebody and base aerodynamics (figs. 1 through 1 7 ) . These differences caused the 4 SRB's to be staged at a higher altitude than expected on STS-1 and STS-2. Reconstructed trajectory parameters, incorporating extracted aerodynamics for STS-1 and STS-2, agreed very well with the flight-derived trajectory parameters. Analyses of these differences uncovered deficiencies in the wind tunnel simulation of plumes and Reynold's number effects and their interaction. The results from STS-1 were modeled as biases to be applied as a function of Mach number and released for initialization of STS-3 flight control parameters. The extraction of aerodynamics from a vehicle of this complexity leads t o many questions about the inclusion of all factors in the extraction process. Nevertheless, approximately the same biases were repeated from flight to flight. After STS-4, the current Space Shuttle aerodynamic data base was modified to include the first four flight results. Gradient and intercept analyses of the' derivatives (aC/aB and aC/aa> indicated that the wind tunnel data base derivatives and absolute levels were incorrect as shown in figures 18 and 19 and, therefore, required revision.

22

Other q u e s t i o n s s t i l l e x i s t . Since t h e forebody aerodynamics changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y , confidence i n t h e wind-tunnel-derived e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n d e c r e a s e d . STS-1 through STS-3 provided o n l y base p r e s s u r e i n f o r m a t i o n , e x c e p t f o r one row of wing p r e s s u r e i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . These measurements i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e b a s e and wing 'pressures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than p r e d i c t e d b u t w i t h no n e t load change on t h e wing a t t h e measured s t a t i o n ( f i g . 2 0 ) . S t r a i n gauge d a t a on t h e wing i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t o t a l wing l o a d s i n c r e a s e d ( f i g . 21). The f a c t t h a t t h e v e h i c l e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e q u e s t i o n e d c a u s e s problems concerning go/no-go l a u n c h d e c i s i o n s s i n c e t h e s e d a t a a r e i n p u t s t o t h e load i n d i c a t o r e q u a t i o n s used f o r t h i s d e c i s i o n . The f i r s t a t t e m p t t o model t h e s t r a i n gauge d a t a i n t o p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n a model which d i d n o t match t h e gauge d a t a t o t h e p r e f e r r e d accuracy ( f i g . 22 through 2 4 ) . Howe v e r , t h e gaug.? d a t a was q u e s t i o n e d and a check c a l i b r a t i o n performed a f t e r STS-5 r e v e a l e d t h a t s e v e r a l key gauges had e i t h e r t h e wrong s c a l i n g f a c t o r s o r r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y . I n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e c o r r e c t i o n s along w i t h more p r e s s u r e d a t a received from STS-4 and STS-5 i n t o a new model i s now being accomplished. These l a s t two f l i g h t s have a l s o provided p r e s s u r e d a t a on t h e f u s e l a g e which v e r i f i e s t h e h i g h e r p r e s s u r e s on t h e lower s u r f a c e .
A wind t u n n e l t e s t program t o s i m u l a t e f l i g h t base p r e s s u r e s w i t h c o l d gas SRl4 and SSME p.lumes was r e c e n t l y completed. The d a t a from t h i s t e s t v e r i f i e d

t h a t t h e t r e n d s and l e v e l s of t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n model c u r r e n t l y b e i n g completed a r e c o r r e c t l y s y n t h e s i z e d .

LESSONS LEARNED
The development of t h e S h u t t l e i n t e g r a t e d aerodynamic d a t a b a s e h a s provided a l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e which a p p l i e s t o any launch v e h i c l e . The wind t u n n e l programs must pay s p e c i i l l a t t e n t i o n t o s t i n g e f f e c t s and Reynold's number s i m u l a t i o n . Receni: knowledge o b t a i n e d from plume s i m u l a t i o n wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g w i l l aid i n acc u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n of plume e f f e c t s f o r f u t u r e v e h i c l e s . I n t h e preliminary design o f any multibody o r winged launch v e h i c l e , t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of v e h i c l e a t t a c h l o a d s arid components t o aerodynamics must be understood i n o r d e r t o avoid v e h i c l e cons t r a i n t s which may l i m i t t h e f l i g h t performance'and s t r u c t u r a l e n v e l o p e s . F i n a l l y , t h e planning of t h e f l i g h t t e s t program, f r o m an aerodynamic viewpoint, must dev o t e s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n locations, a c c u r a c y , and c a l i b r a t i o n w i t h emphasis on t h e measurement of t h r u s t and t h r u s t v e c t o r s f o r powered f l i g h t s since t h e s e h i g h l y i n f l u e n c e t h e aerodynamic d a t a e x t r a c t i o n p r o c e s s .

23

ORBITFR WEIGHT UPDATE

-

SRB THRUST VECTOR
CONTROL DELETE ABORT

*

LIGHTWEIGHT ORBITER

REaUlREHENT C H A N G E S
PERFORMANCE M A R G I N RFDUCllON

-

SUBORBIT ET SEPARATION *THRUST WEIGH1=15 711 SUB NOZZLE RATIO

-

* BLUNT OMS BlCONlC SPINE * SRB SEP MOTORS REVISE0
UNCOVER RCS PORTS

FIXED
CANTED NOZZLE

1700 KLB

3250 KLB 5410 KLB

1650 KLB 3276 K L 0
5146 KLB

1550 KLB 2250 K L 0

4101 KLB

1550 K L 0 2327 K L 0 4165 K L 0

1570 KLB 2578 KLB
4445 KLB

F i g u r e 1.- Space S h u t t l e d e s i g n evolution.

I c

I

I

SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER

.

I

-AX+

'EXTERNAL TANK

0

VARIED TO OPTIMIZE AXIAL FORCE, STABILITY, AND ORBlTERlWlNG LOADS

X VARIED TO OPTIMIZE AXIAL FORCE, HEATING, AND STABILITY

F i g u r e 2.-

S o l i d r o c k e t booster placement.

24

PR E-ATP

2.A

PRESENT

Figure 3 . - Solid rocket booster a f t s k i r t outer moldline geometry.

1
VARIOUS PROFILES WERE TESTED TO OPTIMIZE AXIAL FORCE. LOCAL DELTA PRESSURES, MATERIALS ACOUISITION, AND HEATING

Figure 4 . - External tanklsolid rocket booster nose p r o f i l e s

25

\

20400

t
ZT~OQ
U
I

/ 7

U

I

F i g u r e 5.- O r b i t e r i n c i d e n c e and v e r t i c a l placement from e x t e r n a l tank.

PLACEMENT OPTIMIZED TO REDUCE BASEICROSSFLOW INTERFERENCE

F i g u r e 6 . - Wind tunnel model s t i n g placement.

26

TT\

4 STINGS

CLOSE PROXIMITY

RELATIVE MOVEMENT CLOSE PROXIMITY OF STING SUPPORT CAUSED BLOCKAGE. FOUR STINGS AND THEIR PLACEMENT CAUSED 1NTERFERENCEl CROSSFLOW PROBLEMS. FOUR STINGS ALSO ALLOWED EXCESSIVE MOVEMENT OF MODEL COMPONENTS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OTHER

Figure 7.- Model support system for early l o a d s tests.

1

v

I 0, c
U

0

3

ELEVON DEFLECTI0N.DEG INBD OUTED 0 6q bo SOURCE

~0 0
NOM

1A70
IATO

A

NOM

L
W

NOM ---LOAD

MOM LIMIT

ADD8

0 0

c

0
w

z

5
I

a

E

I

0

z
W

5
0

1

a
4

8 - 0.10.6

,-I

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 FREESTREAM MACH NUMBER Wco)

UULu - -p -0.2 0.6 3
0

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 FREESTREAM MACH NUMBER (Mm)

Fieure -0-

8.- Elevon schedule effect on hinge moments.

27

LAYOUT AFFORDS MINIMUM STING INTERFERENCE

Figure 9.- Multiple-balance layout for single-sting installation.

_ -. ” ’
... _ . . ,..... - . . .. - _ ._. _. . . .
..

. ...
,

...
I

.

/

.

s .

Figure 10.- Installation of model i n ADEC 16T on quick-turn mounting system.

28

e

F i g u r e 11.- I n s t a l l a t i o n of model in ADEC 16T on

straight-sting mounting system.

e

Figure 12.- V i e w of three-percent high-fidelity model in ADEC 16T facility.
29

-004-

0.04

-

M ,

= 1.10

dgiMgo = 1019

- WITHOUT PLUME - 0.02 -

--- WITH PLUME

0.02 -

0-

0-

002-

- 0.02 -004-

0 04-

ST9 1 *EM. AXIAL FORCE COEF IFR9OV). NOMINAL PREDICTIONS SOLID LINE VARIATIONS OF NOMINAL PREDICTIONS WllED LINE FLlGWl DLTA L

STS I %Re. AXIAL FORCE COlFIFR8DV9 NOMINAL ?lEDlCllONS SOLID LINE DOTTED LINE VARIAlIO*IS OF NOMINAL CRfUCTlONl FLIGHT DATA X

0 20 0 15
0 IO 0 05 0
-005

n6

08

(n

I?

14

16 MACH

IO

10

21

1 6

26

0

01
0

0

07
0'

c Y
I 5.0

0

,
i

o
-0
-01

02

-0

o

os

10

(5

20
MA C "

2s

30

35

40

MACH

DIFFERENCES OBSERVED

F i g u r e 14.-

P c ? s t f l i g h t e x t r a c t e d a x i a l - f o r c e comparison with predicted data.

30

I T S 1 WEW W R M A I FDRCC COEF IFRBDW' U W N A L PREDICTION5 SOLlD LINE VARIATIONS Of NOYlNbL PIEDICTIONS D C l I E D LINE FLIGHT DATA 1
06

STS 3 'ORB NCLMAL FORCE COEF tF1BDVI' NOMINAL PREDICTIONS SOLID L I N i VARIATIONS OF NOMINAL VREOIClIOMS D O T l t U LON€ FLlGHl DATA X

O*
01

z

o
-02

-04
-06

0

05

10

15

20
MLCH

I5

30

IS

40

MACH

e
I

MACH

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED

Figure 15.- Postflight extracted normal-force comparison with predicted data.

NOMlNlL PREDICTIONS VARIATIOMS OF YOMlNAL PREDICTIONS FLIGHT DbTA

S T S I .VEM PIlCMING MOMENT COEF IFRBDII' SOLID LINE DOTTED LINE
I

5 1 s 1 'ORB PITCHING MOMENT COEF (FRBDY)' NOMlNbL PREDICTIONS SOLI0 LINE VARlATlONS OF NOMINAL PREDlClKlNS DOlTEO LINE fLlGH1 O A l b X

MACH

MALM

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED

Figure 16.- Postflight extracted pitching moment comparison with predicted data.

31

- + ST5 I

1 ADJUSTED TO 109% THROTTLE

ORBITER VEHICLE

320
280

m

40 50

0

2 g 200
a 160

- 240

Y

:
2

2
a
(Y

110

30
20
10

: m
40
0

0

0

-a0
0

20

40

80

Bo

100

120

140

160

ALTITUDE I103FTI

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED

Figure 1 7 . -

Postflight e x t r a c t e d base axial-force comparison w i t h predicted data.

01)
05 04

03

;
$
Y c

g *

01

0 '
0

"-0,

-;
B

-01

6
-03
-04

-0 5
-06
-6
-d -2 hNGLE OF ATTACK

PNGLE DF ATTACK

0

IOECREESI

C IOEGREESI

FLIGHT AND PREDICTED DATA SHOW LARGE DIFFERENCES IN SLOPES AND INTERCEPTS

F i g u r e 18.- Normal-force

g r a d i e n t comparison.

e

32

FOREOODV SLOPE COMPARISONS C U UEW U - ? 25 IODB-PILINE IA?Y)-SOLID LINE IAt05-DASWEO LlHE I A 1 U W n E D L l V l FLIG"TDATA-F10015 S T S t I S T S 2 2 S T 5 1 1 S T S I 4

-8

-6

-1

-2
I

0

2

4

-8

-6

-1

-1

0

ANGLE DF &'TACK

IDEORILS)

ANGLE Of L l l A C k , IOEGUEEPI

FLIGHT AND PREDICTED DATA SHOW LARGE DIFFERENCES IN SLOPES AND INTERCEPTS

Figure 19.- P i t c h i n g moment g r a d i e n t comparison.

Figure 20.-

F l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d p r e s s u r e d a t a comparison.

33

.* e

I.<*

FLIGHT DATA GENERALLY INDICATE HIGHER LOADS

F i g u r e 21.- Wing strain gauge flight data.

34

w o n r WINO WEAR FORCE CDEF (v= ~ Y I PREDICTED 0ELlA.f 3 STS.2 AVEIIAOE FLlOHl - P R E D l C l t D DLLlAS I STS 1 ItVEUAOF FLIOMT PREDICTED DELIAS I S T S b r t V f I A G E FLIQHT - PRfDlCTED DELTAS 1 V A l l l A ' I D U S OF NOUINAL PIFOICTIOYF DASMfD LINE ASSESSMENT IMCUEUENTS (YODEL $1 SOLID LINE
17s 1 A V f I A O E FLlaHT

3

1 4

1

-¶am
a
1
SOLID LINE

-

1 3 1 DASHED LINE sol in LIYE

a

DAlMlD LIYS

04

01

08

10

I1

14

I8

10

20

22

11

26

MODEL PREDICTION OF SHEAR ACCEPTABLE

a

F i g u r e 22.- Wing s t r a i n gauge comparison w i t h i n t e g r a t e d p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n model f o r wing s h e a r .

- m H r WING BENDING MOMENT COEF SlS 1 AVEUAOL FLIOHl P I E M C l E D DELTAS 5 1 5 2 AVERAQf FLIOMT PREDICTED DELTAS STS 3 AVERAGE FLlGMl PREDICTED DELTAS S T S I AVFRACf FllCMl PUEDICTEO OELlAS V A R I A l I O N S OF N O Y I N A I PSEDlCllOYS ASSESSYEN1 INCRfYENTS IYOOEL 01

. -

n -2101
t 3 1

3
4 DASMEO LINE SOLID LINE

DAIWSD L I W 1

a

SOLID LINE
O W

0 002

0 m.1

O M

0

-000'

-0002

0 001

-0001

MACH

Maw

MODEL PREDICTION OF BENDING NOT ACCEPTABLE

F i g u r e 23.- Wing s t r a i n gauge comparison w i t h i n t e g r a t e d p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n model f o r wing bending.
35

MSMfD LINE
SOLID LlYE

MACH

macw

YACU

MODEL PREDICTION OF TORSION NOT ACCEPTABLE -__ (TORSION WAS NOT CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN FORMULATION OF MODEL)

Figure 24.-

Wing s t r a i n gauge comparison with integrated pressure distribution model for wing torsion.

36

*
SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH VEHICLE AERODYNAMIC UNCERTAINTIES:
LESSONS LEARNED

J. T. Hamilton Space Transportation and Systems Group Rockwell International Downey, California

SUMMARY This paper presents the chronological development and evolution of an uncertainties model which defines the complex interdependency and interaction of the individual Space Shuttle element and component uncertainties for the launch vehicle. Emphasis is placed on user requirements which dictated certain concessions, simplifications, and assumptions in the analytical model. The use o€ the uncertainty model in the vehicle design process and flight planning support is discussed. The terminology and justification associated with tolerances as opposed to variations are also presented. Comparisons of and conclusions drawn from flight minus predicted data and uncertainties are given. Lessons learned from the Space Shuttle program concerning aerodynamic uncertainties conclude this paper. INTRODUCTION The Space Shuttle i s a complex flight vehicle comprised o f four major elements: orbiter, external tank (ET), and two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) plus orbiter/ET/SRB attachment structures, miscellaneous protuberances, and components such as the wing, elevons, vertical, and body flap. In order to insure t h a t the d e s i g n of a vehicle of this complexity is adequate, uncertainties must be defined f o r each of the above items, and an analytical model must be devised where required. This paper discusses the development of the Space Shuttle aerodynamic uncertainties for application to vehicle performance and structural loads analyses. DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT Initial requirements for uncertainties surfaced in the early 1970's. Empha-

sis was placed on definition of tolerance uncertainty levels for the total vehicle forces and moments for use in trajectory dispersion studies. The magnitude of

these uncertainties, expressed as percentages of the aerodynamic coefficients, was based on early test data and engineering judgement without any statistical b a s i s . AS the design of the Space Shuttle matured, emphasis shifted from the

37

t o t a l v e h i c l e t o element and component u n c e r t a i n t y d e f i n i t i o n . P a r a l l e l t o t h i s requirement w a s t h e need t o account f o r model-to-full-scale d a t a d i f f e r ences. This need was f u l f i l l e d w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f " v a r i a t i o n s " as opposed t o " t o l e r a n c e s . " V a r i a t i o n s accounted f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e between model and f u l l - s c a l e d a t a , whereas t o l e r a n c e s provided t h e u n c e r t a i n t y on t h e model o r p r e d i c t e d d a t a . I n o r d e r t o g e n e r a t e v a r i a t i o n l e v e l s , one u s u a l l y r e s e a r c h e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between model and f l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d d a t a f o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s similar t o t h e r e q u i r e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no such i n f o r mation e x i s t e d f o r something s i m i l a r t o t h e launch v e h i c l e ; however, d a t a d i d e x i s t f o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s similar t o t h e i s o l a t e d o r b i t e r . Using r e l a t i o n s h i p s based on i s o l a t e d o r b i t e r v a r i a t i o n - t o - t o l e r a n c e r a t i o s , launch v e h i c l e a s w e l l as element v a r i a t i o n s were d e f i n e d . U n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e elements, components, and t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e were t h e n ready t o be g e n e r a t e d . Due t o t h e l a r g e number of element, component, and t o t a l v e h i c l e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s , t h e need f o r a c o n s i s t e n t method of d e v e l o p i n g uncert a i n t i e s a r o s e . F u r t h e r complexity became a p p a r e n t s i n c e a l i m i t e d number of t e s t s and c o n d i t i o n s were a v a i l a b l e . U n c e r t a i n t i e s were g e n e r a t e d based on two t e s t s and t h e s p r e a d of t h e d a t a t h e r e i n . Incremental u n c e r t a i n t i e s were e s t i m a t e d f o r model-to-full-scale c o n f i g u r a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s , Reynolds number e f f e c t s , and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n i n a c c u r a c i e s . Also i n t r o d u c e d a t t h i s t i m e w e r e t h e c o n c e p t s of "channel flow," " t r a n s f e r t e r m , " and "common cause." A v e r y complex model w a s conceived w i t h a minimum amount o f d a t a as a b a s i s . More t e s t i n g w a s accomplished t o i n c r e a s e t h e a c c u r a c y , f i d e l i t y , and amount of d a t a f o r use i n t h e d e s i g n v e r i f i c a t i o n . These d a t a allowed t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of a new g e n e r a t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t i e s comprised of a somewhat s i m p l i f i e d model, fewer t e r m s , semistat i s t i c a l b a s i s , and a r e f i n e d o u t p u t format a l l o w i n g t h e u s e r s t o o b t a i n a l e s s c o n s e r v a t i v e and more a c c u r a t e d e f i n i t i o n o f aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t y e f f e c t s on d e s i g n and payload c a p a b i l i t i e s . C e r t a i n s p e c i a l i z e d and i s o l a t e d needs a r o s e concerning t h e use of t h e unc e r t a i n t i e s p r i o r t o STS-1 and i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r subsequent [ l i g h t s . Of primary importance w a s t h e day-of-launch l o a d i n d i c a t o r margins assessment c r i t e r i a w i t h r e s p e c t t o u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Up t o t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , v a r i a t i o n l e v e l s had been used f o r a l l aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t y d e f i n i t i o n s , and t h e s e were a p p l i c a b l e p r i m a r i l y t o a s c e n t t r a j e c t o r y d i s p e r s i o n s t u d i e s , s t r u c t u r a l f i t t i n g / s t r u t member l o a d s a n a l y s e s , and Monte C a r l o day-of-launch c r i t e r i a . A s p e c i a l i z e d s e t o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s w a s g e n e r a t e d € o r t h e Monte C a r l o s t u d i e s which were o n l y a funct i o n of Mach number. Use of t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s became complicated when t h e need f o r d i s t r i b u t e d v a l u e s was r e q u i r e d . S e v e r a l models were t r i e d , and t h e c u r r e n t model, which u s e s b a s i c a l l y a p a r t i a l - t o - t o t a l - l o a d r a t i o a t t h e s t a t i o n i n quest i o n , w a s t h e b e s t o v e r a l l . The d i s t r i b u t e d u n c e r t a i n t i e s and t h e results of t h e l o a d i n d i c a t o r d i s p e r s i o n s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d , t h a t t h e aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t i e s were l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e s o f t h e a l l o w a b l e load margins. S e v e r a l i n d i c a t o r s , e s p e c i a l l y on t h e components and t h e wing i n p a r t i c u l a r , showed l e v e l s t h a t exceeded d e s i g n f l a g l o a d s when aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t i e s were used. S e v e r a l v a l u e s were e l i m i n a t e d t o l e v e l s below v a r i a t i o n s , b u t t h e l e v e l s of v a l u e s g r e a t e r than t o l e r a n c e s and problems d i m i n i s h e d .

38

LESSONS LEARNED
The OFT f l i g h t program h a s r e v e a l e d l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamics between p r e d i c t e d d a t a and f l i g h t d a t a . These d i f f e r e n c e s were deemed V a r i a t i o n s l i m i t s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what is termed t h e " l o f t i n g anomaly." exceeded s l i g h t l y b u t were probably r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e adequacy of t h e d e s i g n , and so no s t r u c t u r a l f a i l u r e s o c c u r r e d . Information e x t r a c t e d from f l i g h t d a t a t a s enabled a new technique t o be u t i l i z e d i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of aerodynamic unc e r t a i n t i e s . Treatment of t h e d a t a through t h e use of "Student-t" methodology h a s enabled t h e p o s s i b l e g e n e r a t i o n of a s t a t i s t i c a l u n c e r t a i n t i e s d a t a base i n which t h e p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s o f u n c e r t a i n t y levels. C u r r e n t l y , d e f i n i t i o n of an * ' o p e r a t i o n a l d a t a base" i s b e i n g accomplished. The u n c e r t a i n t i e s model i s b e i n g f o r m a l i z e d , and t h e values e s t a b l i s h e d . These d a t a w i l l b e used f o r a l l f l i g h t s beyond STS-6. The development of t h e Space S h u t t l e i n t e g r a t e d aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t i e s data b a s e h a s provided a l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e which a p p l i e s t o any launch v e h i c l e . ?he u s e of s o - c a l l e d % a r i a t i o n s " provided t h e needed c a p a b i l i t y i n terms of f l i g h t c o n t r o l p r o f i l e s t o p r e c l u d e s t r u c t u r a l f a i l u r e s on a v e h i c l e of t h i s type. C a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e complex flow phenomena must be adhered t o i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of an u n c e r t a i n t i e s model which must p r e d i c t l e v e l s dependent on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between n o t only t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s b u t a l s o t h e v e h i c l e components.

39

L U C VEHICLE AERODYNAMIC FLIGHT TEST RESULTS ANH
L. M. Gaines,

W. L. Osborn,
and P. D. W i l t s e Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Systems Group Rockwe 11 I n t e r na t i ona 1 Downey, C a l i f o r n i a

SUMNARY
T h i s paper p r e s e n t s t h e aerodynamic f l i g h t t e s t procedures and r e s u l t s f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r . The aerodynamic c h s r a c t e r i s t i c s used i n t e s t i n g were d e t r r mined from f l i g h t s STS-1 through STS-4. Norma1 f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment were d i f f e r e n t t h a n p r e d i c t e d , s u g g e s t i n g a n u n a n t i c i p a t e d aerodynamic f o r c e a c t i n g upward on t h e a f t end of t h e o r b i t e r . However, l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i n good agreenent w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s . The flight-measured aerodynamics a r e r e p e a t a b l e and show good c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h a n g l e of a t t a c k and a n g l e of s i d e s l i p .
INTRODUCTION

E;arly i n t h e Space S h u t t l e program, a requirement was i d e n t i f i e d f o r Rockwell t o v e r i f y t h e f i r s t - s t a g e aerodynamic d a t a base w i t h i n t h e d e f i n e d u n c e r t a i n t i e s I t was a g o a l of t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s t o l e v e l d u r i n g t h e f l i g h t t e s t program. e s t a b l i s h f l i g h t d a t a w i t h i n t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s . T h i s o b j e c t i v e would a s s u r e s a t i s f a c t o r y subsystem o p e r a t i o n and performance s i n c e t h e Space S h u t t l e v e h i c l e (SSV) had been designed t o accommodate t h e d e f i n e d u n c e r t a i n t i e s . A program t o accomplish t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s w a s developed s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t f l i g h t .
T h e de ta r e q u i r e m e n t s ,
i n c l u d i n g instrumentation accuracy n e e d s , w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d .

'The accuracy of each parameter was e s t i m a t e d and v e r i f i e d by a n e n g i n e e r i n g review conducted by t h e Ascent F l i g h t System I n t e g r a t i o n Working Group ( A F S I G ) . This .group reviewed t h e product of t h e d a t a e x t r a c t i o n procedure w i t h r e s p e c t t o e s t i mated i n p u t parameters; t h u s , they i d e n t i f i e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t f l i g h t neasurements t h a t were c r i t i c a l t o a c h i e v i n g t h e o r i g i n a l g o a l of t h e program. . E f f o r t and r e s o u r c e s were committed t o improve o r add a d d i t i o n a l d a t a a s a r e s u l t of t h e s e 'combined e n g i n e e r i n g and programmatic reviews.

Preceding page blank

41

SYMBOLS
RI
measured a c c e l e r a t i o n ( f t / s e c 2 ) p o s i t i o n v e c t o r from a c c e l e r o m e t e r s t o Space S h u t t l e v e h i c l e c e n t e r of gravity r o l l rate (rad/sec) p i t c h rate ( r a d / s e c )

P
P

9

r B
T

yaw r a t e ( r a d / s e c )
f o r c e d u e t o base pressure ( l b )

t o t a l t h r u s t due t o Space S h u t t l e main engines and s o l i d r o c k e t boosters ( l b ) moment of i n e r t i a ( s l u g - f t * ) r o l l i n g moment ( f t - l b ) p i t c h i n g moment ( f t - l b ) yawing moment ( f t - l b )

I
L

M N

Subscripts :
x

forward right down j e t damping base pr essur e thrust

Y
z
J
b T

ANALYSIS DEVELOPED TO EXTRACT AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM FLIGHT MEASUREMENTS A f a i r l y l a r g e computer program was developed p r i o r t o t h e f l i g h t t e s t program t o e x t r a c t aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from f l i g h t measurements and provide comparisons w i t h wind t u n n e l p r e d i c t i o n s . Six-component body axis f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e e x t r a c t e d by s o l v i n g t h e e q u a t i o n s of motion a t each i n s t a n t i n t i m e throughout t h e f i r s t s t a g e u s i n g know. mass p r o p e r t i e s , measured a c c e l e r a t i o n s , t h r u s t f o r each of t h e f i v e e n g i n e s , engine gimbaling, and i n t e r f a c e l o a d s f o r t h e o r b i t e r e x t e r n a l t a n k (ET) and f o r t h e s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r (SRB) and the ET based on f l i g h t measurements.
42

The f l i g h t d a t a a n a l y s i s procedures were a s f o l l o w s :
o

Launch v e h i c l e

-

Measure a l l f o r c e s and moments (except aerodynamics) a c t i n g on t h e SSV, mass, and a c c e l e r a t i o n s

41

Linear and a n g u l a r a c c e l e r a t i o n s , a n g u l a r r a t e s , mass p r o p e r t i e s , Space S h u t t l e main engine (SSME) and SRB t h r u s t magnitude and direction C a l c u l a t e aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments

Orbiter

-

Same a s SSV except:

-

-

Add o r b i t e r and ET i n t e r f a c e l o a d s SRB t h r u s t magnitude and d i r e c t i o n not needed

F i g u r e 1 a l s o summarizes t h i s concept.
T h e e q u a t i o n s used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e s i x SSV a s c e n t aerodynamic f o r c e and :moment c o e f f i c i e n t s are l i s t e d below:

c ,
where

I ,
=

i

+ pq (I~,,

-1

~ -~ , 1 (P I
9

-

qr)

+

izz

r

-

ixzP

+

NJ

-

NT

C y a r e t h e a x i a l , normal, and s i d e f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s and a r e t h e r o l l i n g , p i t c h i n g , and yawing moment c o e f f i c i e n t s , C:L, C,, Cn r e s p e c t i v e l y . The symbol S d e n o t e s t h e r e f e r e n c e a r e a .
CA,

CN,

43

The b a s i c program e x t r a c t e d t h e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e f i r s t - s t a g e v e h i c l e and t h e o r b i t e r element, and provided comparisons w i t h wind t u n n e l d a t a . An a u x i l i a r y program w a s developed t o e x t r a c t t h e aerodynamics f o r t h e SRB e l e ments. Thus, t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r each element of t h e s t a c k could be determined from t h e s e programs. The program a l s o c a l c u l a t e d t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each coeff ic i e n t , based on e s t i m a t e s of a c c u r a c i e s f o r each measurement. These d a t a were used b e f o r e t h e f l i g h t program t o e s t i m a t e t h e number of f l i g h t s r e q u i r e d t o provide t h e d e s i r e d accuracy i n t h e e x t r a c t e d aerodynamics. They were a l s o used t o s e l e c t a c c e l e r o m e t e r s t o i n c r e a s e accuracy i n t h e r e s u l t s . The procedure used t o calcul a t e t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i s g i v e n below:
t.:[R,
CN =
0

..

- P,(q-pr)

+ p y ( p + qr)
P S

-

P,(p2

+ q2)]

- B, - T,

U n c e F t a i n t i e s a r e due t o measurement a c c u r a c i e s of R, mass 0 1 1 , c e n t e r of , g r a v i t y ( C . G . ) , l o c a t i o n ( p x , p y , p z ) , a n g u l a r a c c e l e r a t i o n ( 4 and $), a n g u l a r r a t e s ( p , q , and r ) , base p r e s s u r e ( B z ) , t h r u s t and t h r u s t alignment (T,) , and dynamic p r e s s u r e (ti). U n c e r t a i n t y due t o a p a r t i c u l a r measurement = (aC,/ax) uncertainty i n x). *(measurement

e

e

T o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y in the c o e f f i c i e n t i s r o o t sum s q u a r e (RSS) of i n d i v i d u a l u n c e r t a i n t i e s (22 terms):

e

U n c e r t a i n t y e q u a t i o n s have been developed and p r o g r a m e d f o r a l l s i x aerodynamic components, i . e . :

INSTRUPIENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e main aerodynamic e x t r a c t i o n program, s e v e r a l a u x i l i a r y programs were developed t o handle f l i g h t measurements t h a t r e q u i r e d p o s t f l i g h t processing t o achieve the necessary precision. The development of t h e s e p o s t f l i g h t p r o c e s s i n g s u b r o u t i n e s r e q u i r e d v e n t u r i n g i n t o a r e a s normally f o r e i g n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a e r o d y n a m i c i s t , but knowledge of t h e s e a r e a s was a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e c o n f i d e n c e i r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t measurements r e q u i r e d t o r e a l i z e t h e f i n a l accuracy of t h e f l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d aerodynanic d a t a .

44

e

One example is t h e measurement of t h e d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e of t h e SSME t h r u s t v e c t o r . . This measurement c o n s i s t e d of a n approximation of t h e a n g l e by a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n between t h e a c t u a t o r e x t e n s i o n and t h e n o z z l e a n g u l a r p o s i t i o n . I n addit i o n , t h e gimbal and gimbal a c t u a t o r a t t a c h p o i n t s d e f l e c t e d under l o a d and a c c e l e r a t i o n . The s u b r o u t i n e developed t o p o s t f l i g h t p r o c e s s t h e s e measurements had t o work backwards through t h e measured a n g u l a r approximation t o determine t h e extension of t h e a c t u a t o r , t h e n determine t h e a n g u l a r d e f l e c t i o n due t o t h e t h r u s t l o a d s and a c c e l e r a t i o n s and, f i n a l l y , t o r e c a l c u l a t e t h e c o r r e c t t h r u s t v e c t o r a n g l e f o r every d a t a p o i n t f o r each engine. Tlie procedure f o r c a l c u l a t i n g t h e SREi and s o l i d r o c k e t motor (SRM) gimbal a n g l e s was developed u s i n g d a t a o b t a i n e d d u r i n g a series of s t a t i c f i r i n g s . E m p i r i c a l e q u a t i o n s were developed r e l a t i n g t h e t h r u s t a n g l e o b t a i n e d from t h e t e s t s t a n d t o t h e t h r u s t v e c t o r c o n t r o l a c t u a t o r s t r o k e s and chamber p r e s s u r e i n t h e r o c k e t motor case. The need t o i s o l a t e o r b i t e r aerodynamics from t h e remaining p o r t i o n of t h e l a u n c h v e h i c l e added a requirement t o determine t h e i n t e r f a c e f o r c e s between t h e two elements. The i n t e r f a c e s t r u t s c o n s i s t of a forward bipod and a more complex massivt? s t r u c t u r e c o n s i s t i n g of f i v e s t r u t s on t h e a f t end of t h e v e h i c l e , as i . l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 2 . A s y s t e m of f o u r s t r a i n gages on each s t r u t was i n s t a l l e d , arid a p r e c i s e c a l i b r a t i o n of each of t h e o r t h o g o n a l f o r c e s was conducted on t h e f l i g h t t e s t s t r u t a s s e m b l i e s . The r e s u l t s of t h e s e s t r u c t u r a l c a l i b r a t i o n s were reduced t o a s e t of matrix c o e f f i c i e n t s using l i n e a r c u r v e f i t t i n g proced u r e s . These c o e f f i c i e n t s became t h e p r i n c i p a l elements of a p o s t p r o c e s s i n g s u b r o u t i n e t o determine t h e f o r c e s on o r b i t e r f i t t i n g s . The a t t a c h s t r u t s a l s o s u p p o r t t h e l a r g e l i q u i d oxygen (LOX) feed l i n e w i t h a 12,000-lb column of LOX, as w e l l as t h e l e s s e r hydrogen l i n e and t h e v a r i o u s u m b i l i c a l d i s c o n n e c t s . A subr o u t i n e u s i n g dynamic p r e s s u r e and a c c e l e r a t i o n s was developed t o c o r r e c t t h e m e a s u r m e n t system d a t a o u t p u t t o r e f l e c t only t h e f o r c e s a t t h e o r b i t e r f i t t i n g s . E s t i m a t e s of t h e accuracy of t h e system were v e r i f i e d by m o n i t o r i n g t h e main p r o p u l s i o n t e s t s conducted i n t h e t e s t s t a n d s a t Bay S t . Louia, M i s s i s s i p p i . These t e s t s illso provided v a l u a b l e e x p e r i e n c e i n working w i t h a d a t a system used on t h e f l i g h t ET'S. The d a t a used f o r t h e f l i g h t a n a l y s i s were reduced by a v e r a g i n g t h e o u t p u t of t h e four gauges on each s t r u t and t h e n s o l v i n g a two-by-two m a t r i x f o r t h e forward s t r u t s and a five-by-five m a t r i x f o r t h e a f t s t r u t s . A bad o r f a i l e d measurement r e q u i r e d throwing o u t t h e d i a g o n a l l y o p p o s i t e measurement t o eliminate bending e f f e c t t i , This 50 p e r c e n t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e measurement system prompted t h e development of a pseudo m a t r i x procedure which u t i l i z e d a l l of t h e gauges i n a nonsquare o r 5 by 20 m a t r i x ; t h e n , i f a gauge f a i l e d , only t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e s i n g l e gauge was m i s s i n g from t h e f l i g h t e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s . A t y p i c a l p r o d u c t of t h i s subprogram i s shown in f i g u r e s 3 , 4 and 5. I n a d d i t i o n , computer f i l e s were c r e a t e d f o r easy a c c e s s t o t h e measured d a t a . Comparisons w i t h p r e f l i g h t e s t i mates, as well as h i s t o r i c a l comparisons w i t h previous f l i g h t s , were made t o d e t e r m i n e v a l i d i n t e r f a c e f o r c e s going i n t o t h e f l i g h t a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s .

0

45

S e v e r a l a c c e l e r o m e t e r s were i n s t a l l e d on t h e o r b i t e r and on both SBB's. Locations of t h e a c c e l e r o m e t e r s a r e i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 6 . With s e v e r a l a c c e l e r o m e t e r s , t h o s e t h a t were o u t of agreement w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y could be d i s c a r d e d . Biases were a p p l i e d t o t h e measurements based on comparisons of t h e measurements w i t h t h e should-have-read v a l u e s b e f o r e main engine s t a r t w i t h t h e v e h i c l e on t h e pad. A computer program was developed t o u t i l i z e t h e m u l t i p l e measurements. This program provided a c c e l e r a t i o n s a t t h e v e h i c l e C.G. based on t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e v e h i c l e C.G. A l e a s t - s q u a r e s p r o c e s s was used i n t h e a n a l y s i s . Typical r e s u l t s a r e i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 7. The a c c e l e r o m e t e r measurements were f i l t e r e d w i t h a f o u r t h - o r d e r B u t t e r w o r t h f i l t e r which made two p a s s e s , one forward and one backward, t o avoid any i n a d v e r t e n t t i m e s h i f t i n t h e f i l t e r e d data. These a c c e l e r o m e t e r s were a l i g n e d w i t h t h e body a x i s . However, t h e o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e does e x p e r i e n c e some bending d e f l e c t i o n due t o t h r u s t and aerodynamic l o a d s . Analysis of t h e bending e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d . t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e normal a c c e l e r a t i o n measurements d i d not provide s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n t h e e x t r a c t e d aerodynamic normal- f o r c e .

An a i r d a t a probe w a s i n s t a l l e d on t h e t i p of t h e ET ( f i g . 8 ) . P r e s s u r e o r i f i c e s i n a cone were used t o determine a n g l e of attack and s i d e s l i p and t o t a l p r e s s u r e u s i n g a c a l i b r a t i o n from a wind t u n n e l t e s t program. S t a t i c pressure was determined from t r a c k i n g and m e t e o r o l o g i c a l data. See r e f e r e n c e 1 f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i 1s.
The wind t u n n e l d a t a (compiled i n t h e ADDB (e.g., r e f . 2 ) ) was a l s o mechanized as a s u b r o u t i n e t o t h e e x t r a c t i o n program t o p r o v i d e comparisons of wind t u n n e l p r e d i c t i o n w i t h aerodynamics e x t r a c t e d from f l i g h t measurements. Angle of a t t a c k , a n g l e of s i d e s l i p , Mach number, dynamic p r e s s u r e from a i r d a t a system measurements, and a e r o e l a s t i c e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n s from a c t u a t o r p o s i t i o n and p r e s s u r e d i f f e r e n t i a l measurements are used t o p r o v i d e wind t u n n e l c o e f f i c i e n t s c o r r e c t e d f o r aeroe l a s t i c i t y a t t h e f l i g h t condition. F i n a l l y , a series of t r i a l s and v e r i f i c a t i o n a s s e s s m e n t s p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t f l i g h t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e s s was c o r r e c t and t h a t t h e f l i g h t data could be r e t r i e v e d w i t h i n t h e g o a l s of t h e o r i g i n a l requirements.

FLIGHT RESULTS

With f i r s t Space S h u t t l e f l i g h t , t h e aerodynamic d a t a e x t r a c t i o n program was immediately c a l l e d upon t o provide important programmatic answers. The f i r s t - s t a g e t r a j e c t o r y was s t e e p e r t h a n expected ( l o f t e d ) , r e s u l t i n g i n s t a g i n g about 10,000 f t h i g h e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d ( f i g . 9 ) . Comparisons of t h e SSV normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured d u r i n g t h e f i r s t f l i g h t w i t h wind t u n n e l d a t a a r e shown i n f i g u r e 10. The c o e f f i c i e n t s , e x t r a c t e d u s i n g t h e f l i g h t measurements, a r e shown a s d o t t e d l i n e s . The Aerodynamic Data Book p r e d i c t i o n , ( r e f . 2) based on t h e wind t u n n e l t e s t r e s u l t s , i s shown as t h e middle s o l i d l i n e . Each p o i n t on t h e solid l i n e i s t h e Aerodynamic Data Book p r e d i c t i o n f o r t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k , a n g l e of s i d e s l i p , e l e v o n p o s i t i o n , and Mach number measured i n f l i g h t . The Aerodynamic Data Book u n c e r t a i n t i e s are a l s o shown. It was noted t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e measured c o e f f i c i e n t s over s h o r t p e r i o d s of time followed p r e d i c t i o n s f a i r l y w e l l , The a n a l y s i s l e n d i n g confidence t o t h e i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and a n a l y t i c a l procedure.

46

reveal.ed g r e a t e r f i r s t - s t a g e p o s i t i v e normal f o r c e and n e g a t i v e p i t c h i n g moment (nose-down d i r e c t i o n ) than p r e d i c t e d . These d i f f e r e n c e s from t h e wind t u n n e l predic.tion were a primary c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e l o f t anomaly ( f i g . 11). A f t e r t h e f i r s t f l i g h t , an assessment package t h a t included t h e incremental changes i n t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s was r e l e a s e d and used i n t r a j e c t o r y p r e d i c t i o n s f o r subsequent f l i g h t s t o c o r r e c t t h i s l o f t anomaly. A n a l y s i s of data from STS-2, -3, and -4 confirmed t h e STS-1 r e s u l t s . Figure 12 shows t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f l i g h t - m e a s u r e d normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t and t h e Aerodynamic Data Book p r e d i c t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t f o u r f l i g h t s ( r e f . 2 ) . S i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s i n p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t a r e shown i n f i g u r e 13. Although t h e expandec? s c a l e s emphasize t h e d a t a s c a t t e r , t h e r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e f l i g h t d a t a a v e r a g e i s c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t than t h e p r e d i c t i o n , s i n c e a z e r o d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e €light-minus-Aerodynamic Data Book c o e f f i c i e n t ( C ) would r e p r e s e n t agreement A, between tile f l i g h t and wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s . Beyond Mach 1.0, t h e flight-measured normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t d i f f e r e n c e s exceeded t h e published prediction uncertainties. The e x t r a c t e d l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e o r b i t e r element d i f f e r e d from p r e d i c t i o n s i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h o s e of t h e f i r s t s t a g e . The observed d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e o r b i t e r normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment made up a l a r g e p a r t of t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s observed f o r t h e e n t i r e launch v e h i c l e , a s shown i n f i g u r e s 14 and 15. These d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e u n p r e d i c t e d aerodynamic f o r c e acts l a r g e l y on t h e o r b i t e r n e a r i t s a f t end.

STS-4 w a s d e l i b e r a t e l y flown a t a less n e g a t i v e a n g l e of a t t a c k , as shown i n f i g u r e 16, t o e v a l u a t e a n g l e of a t t a c k e f f e c t s on t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s tics. F i g u r e 1 7 shows a t y p i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n of flight-measured normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h angle of a t t a c k . The d a t a p o i n t s i n t h i s f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t a l l t h e d a t a taken a t t e n samples per second between Mach 1.075 and 1.125, a t 0.1-second i n t e r v a l s . The d a t a p o i n t s a r e c o r r e c t e d t o Mach 1.1 and 6 0 u s i n g Aerodynamic Data Book t r e n d s ( r e f . 2 ) . The r e s u l t s show a s u r p r i s i n g l y good c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h a n g l e of a t t a c k , confirming t h e accuracy of t h e measured f l i g h t Regression a n a l y s i s of d a t a from t h e f i r s t f o u r f l i g h t s showed t h a t t h e results. s l o p e s , Cna and were s l i g h t l y less than p r e d i c t e d .

-

Ga,

The flight data shown i n figure 17 (and repeated i n fig. 18) have a l s o been

used t o a s s e s s t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s . The s o l i d l i n e i n f i g u r e 17 was determined by a l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s and r e p r e s e n t s the e s t i m a t e of the curve, based on measurements from f o u r f l i g h t s . The mean of t h e CN v e r s u s 11 S t u d e n t s T" d i s t r i b u t i o n d e f i n e s t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l i m i t s on t h e t r u e mean of CN versus c1 curve, given a number of samples and a confidence l e v e l . F i g u r e 18 shows t h e limits on t h e t r u e Cn v e r s u s a curve, f o r f o u r samples, w i t h a confidence of 0.997. T h i s bound can be considered t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e f l i g h t - m e a s u r e d cn v e r s u s a curve.

A t o t a l of s i x f l i g h t s a r e planned w i t h i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . With s i x f l i g h t s ( o r samples) , t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l i m i t s reduce t o about one-half of t h o s e shown f o r f o u r samples. If t h e s c a t t e r i n t h e d a t a f o r t h e two a d d i t i o n a l f l i g h t s does n o t change from c u r r e n t r e s u l t s , t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s determined from f l i g h t measurements will be w i t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l program g o a l s set several y e a r s ago.

47

The lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics have also been extracted from flight measurements. In general, the lateral-directional characteristics are in very good agreement with the Aerodynamic Data Book (ref. 2 ) . Figures 19 and 20 are typical illustrations of this. The side force, rolling moment, and yawing moment coefficients are correlated with sideslip angle and, although some scatter is apparent, the correlation with sideslip angle and the agreement with the Aerodynamic Data Book are very good.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Space Shuttle aerodynamic data base included a definition of uncertainties of the aerodynamic characteristics. The Shuttle design accommodated these uncertainties. During the flight program it was not only necessary to verify the aerodynamic data base, but also to determine the uncertainties in the aerodynamic characteristics with a goal of reducing uncertainties to a predetermined level. The necessary instrumentation was identified and provided and the analysis tools developed. The first flight occurred and the aerodynamic data extraction program was immediately-called upon to provide important programmatic answers as to why the f irst-stage trajectory was higher than predicted. Comparisons of aerodynamic characteristics (measured during the first flight) with wind tunnel data revealed greater first-stage normal force and negative pitching moment than predicted. These differences from the wind tunnel data were a primary contributor to the loft anomaly. Analysis of data from succeeding flights confirmed the first flight results. The lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics were also extracted from flight measurements and showed very good agreement with wind tunnel results. The aerodynamic characteristics measured in flight showed surprisingly good correlation with angle of attack and sideslip. A statistical procedure was used to evaluate the uncertainty in the aerodynamic characteristics measured in flight. The aerodynamic characteristics have been determined based on the results of the first four flights and it ie anticipated that when the six-flight program is completed, the aerodynamic uncertainties will meet the program goals. REFERENCES
1.
Hillje, E R., and Nelson, R. L.: Ascent A i r Data System Results From the . Space Shuttle Flight Test Program. Shuttle Performance: Lessons Learned, NASA CP-2283, Part 1,' 1983, pp. 187-230.

2.

Aerodynamic Design Data Book, v o l . 2, Launch Vehicle, Report No. SD72-SH-0060-2J, Rockwell International, Aug. 1978.

48

AERO BASE PRESSURE

THRU!;T-

'

TOTAL APPLIED FORCE

= THPUST +..AERO
= MR = M [ ~ I = MR - THRUST

AERO 'T'OTAL APPLIED TORQUE =

.. THRUST
+
I&
TcL)

+6x
-

+

BASE PRESSURE
i j

+

x (C x

p)]

BASE PRESSURE

MAERO

= I6 = -+ I&

+ +

+

AERO
172

+-RBASE.PRESSURE

i; x I ;
G X

&+ MJET DAMPING
-

+
-

MJET DAMPING

-

MTHRUST

M B A S E PRESSURE

Figure 1 . -

Space Shuttle aerodvnamic forces and moments.

El&

AFT RIGHT ET ORBITER ATTACH

\, ,

4 GAGESlSTRUT

F i g u r e 2 . - Orbiter external tank a t t a c h strut configuration.

49

c 0

m
0
0

L

101
0 -10

I

I

0
Q

3 -

-

9
w

-20-

2
0
>
0
U

-30-40-50-60-70

a 3
LT

a

-

-801 -90 -20

I

I 0

I 20

I
40

I
60

I

80

I 100

I 120

I

140

160

TIME

(SEC)

F i g u r e 3 . - STS-3 flight i n t e r f a c e l o a d s - forward v e r t i c a l l o a d .

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

TIME (SEC)

F i g u r e 4 . - STS-3 f l i g h t i n t e r f a c e l o a d s - l e f t a f t verticai l o a d .

50

20 0
P

0

-20
-40

m^
0 0 0 -

5
. J

c a
n

-60
-80
100

a2
a
lI LL

9 -120
a -140
I -

I
-160
U

- 180 - 200
I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

11

TIME

(SEC)

F i g u r e 5.- STS-3 f l i g h t i n t e r f a c e l o a d s

-

r i g h t a f t v e r t i c a l load.

ORBITER C.G. XA = - 71.43

- . FCS

/

XA=

- 32.4

F i g u r e 6.- L i n e a r a c c e l e r o m e t e r s .

51

MEASURE
I/

LOC
RH S R B

T
I

STS-4, MACH = 1.1
10rDN

ESTIMATED, ACCURACY

EACH ACCELEROMETER CORRECTED FOR LATERAL POSITION AND ROLLING ACCELERATION
I

-LT

ORBITER X823 ,/ X973 RH LH X1307 . , AClP ,/ FCS
IJ

I

. r

T

ESTIMATED ACCURACY OF AClP q MEASURE
II

I

--2

I

- \

-

z--\

---

J--

4-

6/ 1 - ; ; -- 5 T 4
/+-

ACCELERATI~N AT LAUNCH VEHICLE C.G.

.-/-- 1
I
?

6

A

-4-

t

- --"
2I
1

- 40

- 30

- 20

I

0

1

I

10
. L

20

y
AFT

ACCELEROMETER LONGITUDINAL LOCATION REFERENCED TO LAUNCH VEHICLE C.G. (FTI

Fig1.ire 7 . - Comparison o f a c c e l e r o m e t e r measurements w i t h m u l t i p l e accelerometer analysis r e s u l t .

DETAIL A

bP,,

= PLOWER -

PUPPER

\

1

v

/

AP;I = PRIGHT

-

PLEFT

F i g u r e 8.- Ascent a i r d a t a system.

52

440 400

1
n
=

360
320

EXTERNAL TANK SEPARATION
ESTIMATED

ACTUAL

316 635 F l

389 684 F l

0 u

PAEFLIGHI ESllMAl[

.

S H u i i t t W A S i n ooo HIGHER THAN PREOICTEO AT TYE EN0
L FIRS1 STAGE W

-2 zoo c
<

SRB SIPARATION

160

-

ESTIMATED

muai
1 7 4 000 F T

120

~

10

40

I
04 OB
12

16

2 0

2 4

28

32

36

40
u 4 1
I
( 1

MACH NUMBER

6

8

IO

12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 9 . - STS-1 trajectorv loft anomaly.

FLIGHT RESULTS

- 2

I

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

16

,
1 8

20

,
2 2

2 4

2 6

I
1

MACH NUMBER
d

.I
AERO DATA BOOK

NORMAL FORCE MORE POSITIVE 6 PITCHING MOMENT

- .4

-

.6

I

I

I

I

I

I

.E

10

1 2

14

1.6 18 MACH NUMBER

20

22

24

26

I

Figure 10.-

STS-1 measured longitudinal aerodynamics.

53

STS-1 LOFTED

I

e

,

WAS 10,000 FT HIGH AT STAGING

PITCHING MOMENT CAUSES THE SSV TO FLY AT A STEEPER ATTITUDE RESULTING I N AN INCREASE IN THE VERTICAL COMPONENT OF THRUST

+

NORMAL FORCE CAUSES AN INCREASE I N NORMAL ACCELERATION a THE LOAD RELIEF SYSTEM COMMANDS A NOSEDOWN PITCH

F i g u r e 11.- Ascent aerodynamic loft anomaly e f f e c t of p i t c h i n g moment and normal f o r c e on t r a j e c t o r y l o f t .

''![

NORMAL FORCE OIFFERENCES FROM PRELilCTlON SUPPORTS LOFT TRLJECTORV RECONSTRUCTION SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED USlr(G AERO DERIVE0 FROM FLIGH1,RESULTS

1

.02

I
'B
'
1'0
---l

I
24

1'2

1 4

16

MACH NUMBER

18

20

22

26

28

F i g u r e 12.- Launch v e h i c l e normal f o r c e .

54

.01

,

0

PITCHING MOMENT OIFFERENCES FROM PREDICTION SUPPORTS LOFT TRAJECTORY RECONSTRUCTION SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED USING AERO DERIVED FROM FLIGHT RESULTS

AERO UNCERTAINTY

, I A c

I\
06

/

- 08

FLIGHT RESULTS

-

09

I

-

-

121 6

"t
I

I

10

1

12

14

1

I I 16 18 MACH NUMBER

I

I

1

20

12

24

26

Figure 1 3 . - Launch v e h i c l e pitching moment.

RESULTS OF STS-1 THROUGH STS-3

t

c

/

/ LAUNCH VEHICLE

v
.6

ORBITER (IN THE PRESENCE OF ET 6 SRBs)
I

I

I

I

I

1

I

1

I

1

.0

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

MACH NUMBER

0

THE UNPREDICTED FORCE ACTS MAINLY ON THE ORBITER

Figure 1 4 . - Comparison of launch v e h i c l e and orbiter differences from predictions - normal force.

55

RESULTS OF STS-1 THROUGH STS-3

00

i;-

kz
0---.04 +a E

ORBITER

g22
a+ ZX

ZK" = I

-.D8LAUNCH VEHICLE

E5 E!&
n

. - .12 -

0

THE UNPREDICTED

FORCE ACTS MAINLY ON THE

AFT END OF THE ORBITER

Figure 15.- Comparison of launch vehicle and orbiter

d i f f e r e n c e s from p r e d i c t i o n s - p i t c h i n g moment.

4

-

a

3 2

VI w

E

c1

1

Y
I-

X

O
-1

< I u
2 Y

0

u

z
4

-2 -3
-4

-5

-6l
.6

8

'

10

'

1 2

'

14

'

16

'

'

I

I

'

18

20

22

24

26

MACH NUMBER

STS-4WAS FLOWN AT LESS NEGATIVE ANGLES ANGLE OF AllACK ON AERO CHARACTERISTICS

OF

ATTACK TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF

Figure 16.- Comparison of STS-1 through -4 a n g l e of a t t a c k .

56

0
0

FLIGHT RESULTS FROM ALL FOUR FLIGHTS CORRELATE VERY WELL WITH ANGLE VARIATION OF CN 6 C WITH y SLIGHTLY LESS THAN PREDICTED

OF ATTACK

"1

SYMBOL

I

- b

I

I

1

I

I

15r

1

- 051 - 5.0

1

I

I

I

-4 5

-4 0

-3 5

-30

-2 5

-2 0

I

ANGLE OF AlTACK (DEGREES)

Figure 17.- Effect of angle of attack on launch vehicle aerodynamic characteristics (Mach 1.1, typical).

0.2

SYMBOL

AERO DATA BOOK PREDICTION

STUDENTS "T" ANALYSIS-

99.73% CONFIDENCE THAT

0.2

,

AERO DATA BOOK PREDICTION

A
I
0

THE TRUE MEAN OF CN vs WILL BE BETWEEN THESE LIMITS BASED O N FOUR SAMPLES

- 0.11
-5.5

I

'
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

-5.0

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

I

-1.0

-0.5

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEGREES)

Figure 18.- Uncertainties in normal force and pitching moment measured in flight (Mach = 1.1, typical).

57

05 I

FLIGHT RESULTS IN GOO0 AGREEMENT WITH AERO OATA BOOK VERY WELL WITH SIDESLIP RNGLE

6 CORRELATE

I
- .os
AERO DATA BOOK

PREDICTION
I 1

\

\ \
\ I

-

02 : - 8

- 6

- 4

- 2

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 1

'6

!

I

SIDESLIP ANGLE 1, (DEGREES)

F i g u r e 19.- Launch v e h i c l e l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n a l f l i g h t r e s u l t s - s i d e f o r c e a n d r o l l i n g moment (Mach = 1 . 1 , typical).

SYMBOL
h

O

STS-1 0 STS-2 A STS-3

MEAN OF FLIGHT DATA \

/

BOOK PREDICTION

- ,021

W-

1

1

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

i I 1 I I .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 SIDESLIP ANGLE. 15 (DEGREES)

I

0

1.2

1 1.4

16

F i g u r e 20.- Launch v e h i c l e l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n a l f l i g h t r e s u l t s - yawing m o m e n t (P!ach = 1.1, t y p i c a l ) .

58

P

N 8 4 1 0 1 2 0 3.5-

AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOFT ANOMALY OBSERVED ON ORBITAL FLIGHT TESTS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE

T. E. Surber and J. S. Stone Space Transportation & Systems Group Rockwell International Downey, California

SUMMARY
This paper d e s c r i b e s t h e l o f t anomaly observed during t h e launch phase of t h e o r b i t a l f l i g h t t e s t s (OFT) of t h e Space S h u t t l e and p r e s e n t s evidence t h a t t h e l o f t anomaly r e s u l t e d from p r e v i o u s l y unobserved'aerodynamic phenomena. The anomaly was t h a t t h e a l t i t u d e a t s t a g i n g w a s h i g h e r than a n t i c i p a t e d . The a n t i c i p a t e d a l t i t u d e p r o f i l e was p r e d i c a t e d on wind t u n n e l t e s t r e s u l t s t h a t d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y s i m u l a t e t h e flow between t h e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e and e x t e r n a l t a n k and d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y simul a t e t h e engine p l u m e s and t h u s t h e base p r e s s u r e s . An analogy i s used to relate t h e flow between t h e o r b i t e r and e x t e r n a l t a n k t o t h e flow i n a two-dimensional channel. Plume s i m u l a t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d as a major g o a l d u r i n g wind t u n n e l testi n g , and a wind t u n n e l t e s t t h a t w a s conducted t o provide t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e plume e f f e c t on t h e channel flow f i e l d is d e s c r i b e d . INTRODUCTION The i n i t i a l launch of t h e Space S h u t t l e r e s u l t e d i n a t r a j e c t o r y wherein t h e launch v e h i c l e a t t a i n e d a h i g h e r a l t i t u d e a t s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r (SRB) s e p a r a t i o n t h a n had been p r e d i c t e d . This a l t i t u d e discrepancy (or l o f t ) was a t t r i b u t e d , i n p a r t , t o a p p a r e n t i n a c c u r a c i e s i n t h e wind t u n n e l based p r e d i c t e d aerodynamic chara c t e r i s t i c s . An e f f o r t t o d e f i n e t h e cause and i s o l a t e t h e c o n t r i b u t i n g parame t e r s was i n i t i a t e d immediately.
w i t h the pre-flight

On-board f l i g h t i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n d a t a were reduced t o p r o v i d e comparison data estimates. One of t h e f i r s t a c t i o n s t a k e n w a s t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u t i l i z i n g t h e v a r i a t i o n l e v e l s (allowance f o r p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between wind t u n n e l p r e d i c t i o n s and f u l l - s c a l e f l i g h t p a r a m e t e r s ) for aerodynamic p i t c h i n g moment u n c e r t a i n t y . The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , u s i n g t h e maximum n e g a t i v e p i t c h i n g moment u n c e r t a i n t y , y i e l d e d an SRB s e p a r a t i o n a l t i t u d e of 171,907 f e e t as compared t o t h e measured v a l u e of 173,957 f e e t . A second r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , u s i n g one degree of Space S h u t t l e main engine (SSME) t h r u s t misalignment i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p i t c h i n g moment due t o aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t i e s , produced a s e p a r a t i o n a l t i t u d e of 173,293 f e e t , which was w i t h i n 664 f e e t of t h e measured v a l u e . It was concluded t h a t t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s played a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e a c t u a l f l i g h t and e s t i m a t e d t r a j e c t o r i e s . Subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of t h e measured aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e launch v e h i c l e and t h e o r b i t e r i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e e x t e r n a l t a n k and SRB's r e v e a l e d a f a v o r a b l e comparison between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d values of t h e l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s whereas t h e comparison of t h e measured l o n g i t u d i n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s d i d n o t compare v e r y w e l l w i t h the estimates.
59

The next s t e p i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o examine t h e f l i g h t d a t a i n d e t a i l .

The a n a l y s i s of t h e e x t r a c t e d aerodynamic d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t normal f o r c e and
p i t c h i n g moment were t h e primary c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h e l o f t anomaly. The a n a l y s i s a l s o showed t h a t i n c r e m e n t a l l o a d s a c t i n g on t h e a f t p o r t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e cont r i b u t e d t o t h e l o f t and t h a t t h e s e loads o r i g i n a t e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e . F l i g h t d a t a a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t launch v e h i c l e base p r e s s u r e s and wing l o a d s were c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r than had been e s t i m a t e d . These same o b s e r v a t i o n s were r e p e a t e d f o r a l l subsequent OFT f l i g h t s . S i n c e t h e l o f t anomaly was repeated on a l l f l i g h t s and t h e e x t r a c t e d aerodynamics were r e a s o n a b l e and r e p e a t a b l e , i t remained t o develop a flow model t o account f o r t h e observed aerodynamic e f f e c t s . The f i r s t item i n v e s t i g a t e d was t h e flow between t h e o r b i t e r lower s u r f a c e and t h e e x t e r n a l tank and s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r upper s u r f a c e s . R e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n showed t h a t t h e "channel" flow could account f o r approximately 50 p e r c e n t of t h e normal f o r c e and 40 p e r c e n t of t h e p i t c h i n g moment increment between p r e - f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s and f l i g h t measurements. A math model of t h e channel flow between t h e o r b i t e r and e x t e r n a l t a n k and t h e u n a n t i c i p a t e d s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e of t h e j e t plumes on t h e forebody f o r c e s and moments w i l l be d e s c r i b e d and t h e i n f l u e n c e of each of t h e s e aerodynamic e f f e c t s on t h e l o f t anomaly w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . This paper a l s o d i s c u s s e s p l a n s f o r e a r l y wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g of a j e t plume model w i t h i n c r e a s e d plume s i m u l a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y .
SPACE SHUTTLE VEHICLE

Configuration

The Space S h u t t l e launch c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s shown i n f i g u r e 1. The launch conf i g u r a t i o n - i s composed of t h e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e mounted on t o p of a n o n r e c o v e r a b l e l i q u i d oxygen-hydrogen e x t e r n a l t a n k (ET) t o which are a l s o a t t a c h e d two s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r s (SRB), which are r e c o v e r a b l e f o r r e f u r b i s h i n g and r e u s e . Propuls i o n f o r t h e S h u t t l e i s provided by t h r e e l i q u i d p r o p e l l a n t engines p o s i t i o n e d on t h e o r b i t e r b a s e and two s o l i d p r o p e l l a n t r o c k e t b o o s t e r s mounted on e i t h e r s i d e o f t h e e x t e r n a l tank.

e

Flight Environment
The launch phase of a Space S h u t t l e m i s s i o n exposes t h e v e h i c l e t o s u b s o n i c , t r a n s o n i c , and hypersonic, f l o w regimes. A t r a j e c t o r y p r o f i l e f o r t h e f i r s t m i s s i o n is p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 2 , which shows t h e f l i g h t a l t i t u d e varying from n e a r s e a l e v e l t o approximately 400,000 f e e t a t o r b i t a l i n s e r t i o n . Vehicle c o n f i g u r a t i o n changes d u r i n g launch r e s u l t from SRB s e p a r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e t r a n s i t i o n from f i r s t t o second s t a g e and e x t e r n a l tank s e p a r a t i o n p r i o r t o on-orbit o p e r a t i o n . Vehicle aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments are t h e r e s u l t of v e h i c l e motion plus t h e e f f e c t of e n g i n e plumes on t h e v e h i c l e forebody and base.

60

Observed Anomaly ]During t h e f i r s t two Space S h u t t l e m i s s i o n s , t h e launch v e h i c l e was observed t o f l y a t r a j e c t o r y t h a t w a s h i g h e r than p r e d i c t e d . The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d a l t i t u d e s f o r t h e f i r s t S h u t t l e f l i g h t i s shown i n f i g u r e 2 . F l i g h t s 3 and 4 of t h e f l i g h t t e s t program included an u p d a t e t o t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s t o account f o r t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s . This e l i m i n a t e d t h e l o f t phenomenon. The c a u s e of t h e t r a j e c t o r y anomaly remains, however, and i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s analysis. PREDICTED DATA AND FLIGHT DATA

F l i g h t Data Base 'The p r e d i c t e d f l i g h t d a t a b a s e was d e r i v e d e x c l u s i v e l y u s i n g wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a . S t a n d a r d f o r c e and moment aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were o b t a i n e d f o r t h e complete launch v e h i c l e as w e l l a s f o r each component of t h e v e h i c l e ( r e f . 1). Airlosad d i s t r i b u t i o n s were e s t a b l i s h e d from p r e s s u r e d a t a o b t a i n e d on h i g h l y p r e s s u r e - i n s t r u m e n t e d a i r l o a d s models ( r e f . 2 ) . The wind t u n n e l d e r i v e d a i r l o a d s d a t a were modified so t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e s e d a t a would y i e l d t h e p r e d i c t e d f o r c e and moment d a t a . Wing l o a d s and e l e v o n hinge moments were o b t a i n e d from s t r a i n gauge wind t u n n e l model i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of SRB and SSME engine plumes were o b t a i n e d through c o l d plume wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g u s i n g a p r e s s u r e i n s t r u m e n t e d launch v e h i c l e t e s t model. F l i g h t Measurements F l i g h t aerodynamic d a t a were d e r i v e d from a c c e l e r a t i o n d a t a taken f o r t h e launch v e h i c l e and s t r a i n gauge d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e orbiter-ET a t t a c h hardware. The launch v e h i c l e aerodynamics were t h u s d i v i d e d between t h e o r b i t e r and lower s t a c k (ET p l u s two SRB's). Wing l o a d s and elevon h i n g e moments were d e r i v e d from s t r a i n gauge measurements. F l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e s were o b t a i n e d from t r a n s d u c e r p r e s s u r e measurements t a k e n on t h e base of t h e v e h i c l e components. Analysis L o n g i t u d i n a l aero.dynamic f l i g h t d a t a d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a of t h e Aerodynamic Design Data Book ( r e f . 1). The o r b i t e r v e h i c l e normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment terns e x t r a c t e d from f l i g h t measurements a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 3 . The normal f o r c e was more p o s i t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d w h i l e t h e p i t c h i n g moment w a s more n e g a t i v e than p r e d i c t e d . The d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment f o r t h e launch v e h i c l e were caused, almost c o m p l e t e l y , by d i f f e r e n c e s i n o r b i t e r l o a d s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of f l i g h t - m i n u s - p r e d i c t e d normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment increments between t h e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e and t h e complete launch v e h i c l e i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 4.

61

The l o n g i t u d i n a l l o a d increments t h a t were measured on t h e o r b i t e r were subs t a n t i a t e d u s i n g wing s h e a r and elevon h i n g e moment f l i g h t d a t a . The wing s h e a r was more p o s i t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . The i n b o a r d elevon h i n g e moments g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e l o a d was a c t i n g on t h e elevon. F i g u r e 5 p r e s e n t s t h e wing panel l o a d terms. F l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e s from each component of t h e launch v e h i c l e w e r e found t o b e h i g h e r t h a n t h e p r e d i c t e d v a l u e o b t a i n e d from wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a . The d i f f e r e n c e between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d base p r e s s u r e s i s shown i n f i g u r e 6 i n terms of t h e launch v e h i c l e b a s e a x i a l f o r c e . The d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d p i t c h i n g moment and normal f o r c e had a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on t h e v e h i c l e l o f t i n g . A n e g a t i v e aerodynamic p i t c h i n g moment increment caused t h e engines t o gimbal f o r t r i m r e s u l t i n g i n a n e g a t i v e normal f o r c e component of t h r u s t . Since t h e v e h i c l e i s i n v e r t e d ( t a i l down) d u r i n g launch, ' t h e r e s u l t a n t t h r u s t - i n d u c e d normal f o r c e i n t h e v e r t i c a l d i r e c t i o n f o r c e d t h e v e h i c l e t o h i g h e r a l t i t u d e s . The p o s i t i v e aerodynamic normal f o r c e increment a l s o caused v e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l system attempted t o e l i m i n a t e by f u r t h e r engine g i m b a l l i n g t o c r e a t e an a d d i t i o n a l t h r u s t - i n d u c e d n e g a t i v e normal f o r c e . Hence, t h e v e h i c l e response t o an aerodynamic-induced n e g a t i v e p i t c h i n g moment and p o s i t i v e normal f o r c e w a s t o f o r c e t h e v e h i c l e h i g h e r . I n a d d i t i o n , b a s e a x i a l f o r c e , being l e s s than p r e d i c t e d , a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e . l o f t i n g by an increase i n v e h i c l e performance. The f l i g h t d a t a anomalies i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e flow between t h e o r b i t e r and t h e
ET may n o t have been s i m u l a t e d p r o p e r l y d u r i n g t h e wind t u n n e l t e s t s . Since t h e c e n t e r of p r e s s u r e of t h e f light-minus-predicted l o n g i t u d i n a l l o a d increments w a s

determined t o be on t h e a f t p o r t i o n of t h e launch v e h i c l e , t h e e f f e c t of t h e plume-induced ET b a s e p r e s s u r e s w a s concluded t o have a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on t h e flow i n t h e channel a r e a . Higher than p r e d i c t e d ET b a s e p r e s s u r e s could f e e d forward between t h e o r b i t e r and ET and induce t h e more p o s i t i v e normal f o r c e and more n e g a t i v e p i t c h i n g moment. The development of an a n a l y t i c a l model was i n i t i a t e d t o f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d t h i s phenomenon. Assessment of t h e accuracy of t h e f l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a , however , remained. F l i g h t Data C r e d i b i l i t y Various f l i g h t - d e r i v e d s o u r c e s of e r r o r were i n v e s t i g a t e d t o determine t h e magnitude of each term, as w e l l a s a t o t a l e r r o r sum, t o be compared w i t h t h e f l i g h t - m i n u s - p r e d i c t e d increments. F i g u r e 7 shows a b a r graph f o r each p e r t i n e n t s o u r c e of normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment measurement e r r o r p l u s a r o o t sum s q u a r e (RSS) v a l u e r e p r e s e n t i n g a t o t a l e r r o r . It was concluded t h a t t h e measured d a t a were l a r g e r than t h e v a r i o u s s o u r c e s of e r r o r . The aerodynamic measurements were a l s o found t o c o r r e l a t e w e l l w i t h a n g l e of a t t a c k and, when combined w i t h a l l o t h e r s o u r c e s of e r r o r t h a t a f f e c t v e h i c l e performance, provided good t r a j e c t o r y recons t r u c t i o n . It was concluded t h a t t h e f l i g h t measurements were r e a s o n a b l e and repeatable.

62

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Flow F i e l d Modeling

A s i m p l i f i e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e flow f i e l d was developed from known f l u i d flow c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r s i m p l e g e o m e t r i e s . A t h e o r e t i c a l model was then d e f i n e d t o p r o v i d e an a n a l y t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e flow d e s c r i p t i o n .
'The f l o w between t h e o r b i t e r and ET was considered similar t o t h a t found i n a channel w i t h a downstream C o n s t r i c t i o n . As t h e flow a c c e l e r a t e d through t h e orbiter-ET "channel," a t s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h f l i g h t Mach numbers, choking occurred i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e orbiter-ET a f t a t t a c h hardware. A normal shock formed i n f r o n t of t h e a t t a c h hardware r e s u l t i n g i n a s u p e r s o n i c l s u b s o n i c f l o w d i s c o n t i n u i t y a t t h e shock l o c a t i o n . A s k e t c h of t h i s flow f i e l d is p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 8 w i t h photographs of t h e a f t a t t a c h hardware t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e c o n s t r i c t i o n problem. The three-dimensional n a t u r e of t h e flow i n t h e channel s u g g e s t e d t h a t a b e t t e r analogy would be t h a t of t h e flow e n t e r i n g an e n g i n e i n l e t . To c o n t r o l t h e amount of i n j e s t e d mass, a t h r o a t could be l o c a t e d downstream of t h e i n l e t opening. F i g u r e 9 shows t h e g e n e r a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n where t h e n o z z l e t h r o a t is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e openings i n t h e o r b i t e r - E T a t t a c h hardware shown i n f i g u r e 8. The choking would probably occur a t subsonic channel Mach numbers a s shown i n f i g u r e 9. T h i s f l o w phenomenon would t h u s be p r e s e n t throughout a major p o r t i o n of t h e launch profile.

It remained t o develop an a n a l y t i c a l model t o d e s c r i b e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e measured b a s e p r e s s u r e s , t h e f l o w p r o p e r t i e s between t h e o r b i t e r and ET, and t h e v e h i c l e l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i g u r e 1 0 shows a summary of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o b t a i n e d between t h e f l i g h t and model t e s t v e h i c l e s . The e f f e c t s of v e h i c l e boundary l a y e r were considered b e f o r e t h e model was developed.
Boundary Layer Simulation The boundary l a y e r t h i c k n e s s on each body was an a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i n g
f a c t o r in t h e position of the shock between t h e o r b i t e r and t h e ET.

The boundary

layers become t h i c k e r as they p r o g r e s s a l o n g each body u n t i l s e p a r a t i o n pressure
g r a d i e n t s a r e encountered. These s e p a r a t i o n g r a d i e n t s a r e c r e a t e d by t h e s t r u c t u r a l c r o s s beam on t h e o r b i t e r and t h e presence of t h e a t t a c h s t r u c t u r e on t h e ET. In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e s u l t a n t shock s t r u c t u r e c o u l d induce a s u r f a c e f l o w s e p a r a t i o n , so t h e p o s i t i o n of t h i s shock becomes important. The g e n e r a l f l o w s i t u a t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 11. It became a p p a r e n t t h a t boundary layer s i m u l a t i o n on t h e wind t u n n e l models could a f f e c t t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e channel shock. The t h i c k boundary l a y e r on t h e wind t u n n e l model would produce a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a i n t h e channel t h a t w a s s m a l l e r than t h a t on t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e . Hence, t h e shock would be f a r t h e r forward on t h e model t h a n on t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e . T h i s i n e f f e c t c r e a t e d a channel press u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e and t h e model t e s t e d , and t h e cieparated flow a f t of t h e shock c r e a t e d a means by which ET base p r e s s u r e e f f e c t s could be t r a n s m i t t e d i n t o t h e channel.

63

The r e s u l t a n t shock-induced flow s e p a r a t i o n would allow ET b a s e p r e s s u r e s t o ' i n f l u e n c e t h e channel p r e s s u r e s ; however, t h e e f f e c t s of v e h i c l e boundary l a y e r a r e c o n s i d e r e d secondary t o t h e i n f l u e n c e of plume s i m u l a t i o n and model geometry and were n o t , t h e r e f o r e , i n c l u d e d i n t h e development of t h e a n a l y t i c a l model. Channel Flow A n a l y s i s
A t y p i c a l p l o t of t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n (Cp) along t h e external t a n k c e n t e r l i n e a t M = 1.10 i s shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 . S e v e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s concerning t h e f l o w between t h e ET and o r b i t e r can be made. S t a r t i n g a t t h e ET n o s e , t h e d e c r e a s e i n C i m p l i e s a c o n t i n u i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n u n t i l t h e flow e n c o u n t e r s t h e s t r o n g nose s i o c k from t h e o r b i t e r a t X / L e 0.23. The f l o w then d e c e l e r a t e s (Cp i n c r e a s e s ) u n t i l t h e p r e s s u r e f i e l d of t h e forward a t t a c h bipod is encountered. The flow accelerates around t h e bipod and then d e c e l e r a t e s a f t of t h e bipod. In t h e "channel" from X/L = 0.56 t o X/L = 0.80, t h e flow d e c e l e r a t e s because of t h e blockage from t h e a f t a t t a c h c r o s s beam hardware. This second s u p e r s o n i c r e g i o n i s t e r m i n a t e d by a n o t h e r s t r o n g shock t h a t b r i n g s t h e press u r e back t o t h e b a s e p r e s s u r e l e v e l . The s t a t i c p r e s s u r e p l o t a l s o shows t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same f l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are observed on t h e o r b i t e r bottom c e n t e r l i n e . As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e flow between the t o p of t h e ET and the bottom of t h e o r b i t e r i s somewhat analogous t o f l o w through a n o z z l e .

I n f l i g h t , t h e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n of t h e b a s e due t o t h e engine plumes i s p o s t u l a t e d t o f o r c e t h e second shock t o jump forward and merge w i t h t h e f i r s t shock i n f r o n t of t h e a t t a c h hardware. The r e s u l t i n g flow s e p a r a t i o n causes a completely s u b s o n i c flow b e h a v i o r down t h e channel t o t h e e x i t . The shock jump g e n e r a t e s a p r e s s u r e i n c r e a s e r e s u l t i n g i n a p o s i t i v e normal f o r c e d i s c o n t i n u i t y (nC,> and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t a b i l i z i n g p i t c h i n g moment d i s c o n t i n u i t y (-A&> because t h e p o s i t i v e p r e s s u r e jump o c c u r s a f t of t h e moment r e f e r e n c e p o i n t . The n e x t s t e p i n t h e a n a l y s i s w a s t o d e r i v e some fundamental r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e l a t i n g t h e " i n l e t " and "exit" c o n d i t i o n s of t h e channel. These relat i o n s h i p s p e r m i t t e d t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s w i t h i n t h e c h a n n e l , which l e d t o a q u a n t i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s c a u s i n g t h e l o f t . Assume t h a t t h e channel i s d e f i n e d as shown a t t h e t o p of f i g u r e 12 and t h a t t h e channel f l o w has t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e lower p o r t i o n of f i g u r e 1 2 . Assume a l s o t h a t t h e " i n l e t " i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e c o n s t r i c t i o n produced by t h e a f t a t t a c h hardware and t h e i n l e t "cowl" i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e channel between t h e forward a t t a c h p o i n t and t h e a f t a t t a c h p o i n t . Assume t h a t t h e i n l e t shock i s pushed upstream by a p r e s s u r e p u l s e from t h e engine plumes u n t i l t h e i n l e t blocks. Some of t h e mass w i l l accumulate upstream of t h e p o i n t of blockage. The p r e s s u r e i n t h a t r e g i o n w i l l r i s e , r e s u l t i n g i n a forward motion of t h e shock. This motion i s u n s t a b l e and t h e f l o w b e g i n s t o s p i l l o u t of t h e "channel" l a t e r a l l y . A f t e r t h e e n t e r i n g flow has been blocked (by t h e forward motion of t h e s h o c k ) , t h e momentum of t h e a i r column i n t h e "channel" s u s t a i n s i t s downstream motion f o r a time and r e s u l t s i n a low p r e s s u r e r e g i o n a t t h e " e x i t " ( a f t a t t a c h hardware). A t t h e same time, t h e mass f l o w e n t e r i n g t h e "channel" b e g i n s t o d e c r e a s e as soon as t h e " i n l e t " b l o c k s . The p r e s s u r e downstream of t h e blockage p o i n t , t h e r e f o r e , b e g i n s t o drop a s soon as t h e i n l e t blocks.

64

cx"9'...
'

1
n

OF C-' . . I 5 The next significant event is a large drop in inlet pressure caused by restarting of supercritical flow. Since the "channel" pressure is low, the inlet flow quickly becomes supersonic. As mass accumulates in the "channel," the pressure rises and the shock wave moves upstream. The jump in "channel" pressure corresponds to the first impulsive entrance of mass into the "inlet" and the "inlet" pressure drops when supercritical flow is established. The entire process is seen to be time-dependent. The "channel" essentially "fills" and "spills" as the shock blocks the inlet and the inlet subsequently restarts. After the inlet becomes supercritical, an approximate calculation of fill-up time can be made based on "engine" volume and known rates of mass flow into the inlet and out of the exit.
The mass flow, i, through the sonic area, S*, can be expressed in terms of the stagnation pressure and temperature

-

-

1

-J
- ?

i=

[ y fi]s** ( )
2 ( Y - 1)

(1)

The time rate of mass accumulation within the "engine" is the difference between the inlet and exit flow rates

-tr

+ 1)

where V is the total volume of the "engine." The density change can be eliminated by using the thermal equation of state

Substitute equation ( 3 ) into equation ( 2 ) :

65

ORIGINAL PAGE 1 8 OF POOR QUALITY
The e f f e c t i v e l e n g t h , R

, for

t h e "engine" i s d e f i n e d by

V R E s2

Equation ( 4 ) becomes

where t h e s u b s c r i p t , e , r e f e r s t o t h e ''engine" e x i t c o n d i t i o n s . Equation ( 5 ) is a f i r s t - o r d e r d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n whose s o l u t i o n i s of t h e form:

y E-+

Q
P

ce

-bPt

where

-(Y +
2(Y
b = ( T ) thus

-

1)

1)

a 6 ,

R

The s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e r a t i o across t h e channel is o b t a i n e d from e q u a t i o n ( 5 ) and i s p r e s m t e d i n f i g u r e 13.

66

The "channel" p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h t i m e was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e d e r i v e d model f o r Mach 1.1 (STS-4 t r a j e c t o r y ) . These d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 14. For comparison, t h e f l i g h t p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t , measured from p r e s s u r e t a p VO7P9484A (lower f u s e l a g e , forward of a t t a c h hardware), h a s a v a l u e of 0.325. A s shown i n f i g u r e 1 4 , t h e "channel" f l o w model p r e d i c t s a maximum time dependent d i f f e r e n c e from f l i g h t of hCp 0.135 ( t = 0.1 s e c . ) . However, t h e model channel p r e s s u r e i s i n good agreement w i t h t h e f l i g h t v a l u e for t h e s t e a d y s t a t e ( t = 0 second) c a s e ( c p FLIGHT=0.325,Cp MODEL- 0.301). The c o n c l u s i o n is t h a t t h e "channel" p r e s s u r e response time may b e t o o s h o r t f o r t h e f l i g h t i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n t o g i v e a r e l i a b l e measurement. Although t h e p r e s s u r e t r a n s d u c e r samples a t a r a t e of t e n c y c l e s p e r second, i t l a c k s t h e time response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o measure t h e predicted t r a n s i e n t pressure pulse.

-

The p r e d i c t e d v e h i c l e p r e s s u r e s came from wind t u n n e l t e s t IAl05 ( r e f . 2 ) . The 'IA105 p r e s s u r e v a l u e corresponding t o t h e f l i g h t p o i n t i n q u e s t i o n a t Mach 1.1 i s C1, = 0.25. I f t h e t r a n s i e n t p r e s s u r e p u l s e does e x i s t , t h e n t h e i n c r e m e n t a l p r e s s u r e ( d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a n a l y t i c a l model and IA105) w i l l have a magnitude of AC = 0.21 (0.46 0 . 2 5 ) . This p r e s s u r e , when i n t e g r a t e d from Xo = 1200 t o t h e body !lap h i n g e l i n e , y i e l d s a normal f o r c e of 52 p e r c e n t of t h e flight-minusp r e d i c t e d increment and 43 p e r c e n t of t h e p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e "channel" flow increment may be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e l o f t anomaly.

-

A d d i t i o n a l Wind Tunnel T e s t i n g Power-on base p r e s s u r e s and forebody plume e f f e c t s were g e n e r a t e d u s i n g c o l d p1um.e wind t u n n e l t e s t s . Plume s i m u l a t i o n parameters were used i n an e f f o r t t o have t h e c o l d plume model b a s e p r e s s u r e s e q u a l t h o s e t o be encountered i n f l i g h t . However, t h e component base p r e s s u r e s from t h e wind t u n n e l model were much lower t h a n o c c u r r e d i n f l i g h t . An e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s e lower p r e s s u r e s i s t h a t t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameters t h a t were used g e n e r a t e d undersized plumes d u r i n g t h e wind tunnel tests

.

The large f l i g h t plumes tended t o b l o c k f r e e s t r e a m flow a n d / o r r e c i r c u l a t e SRB plume g a s e s i n t o t h e ET base r e g i o n e a r l i e r i n t h e t r a j e c t o r y t h a n would have been
predicted f r o m the test data.

This r e s u l t e d i n h i g h e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d ET base

p r e s s u r e s , which a f f e c t e d t h e flow i n t h e orbiter-ET channel. P r e v i o u s plumes t e s t s used an a i r supply s t r u t between t h e o r b i t e r and ET t o e n c l o s e p r e s s u r e l i n e s . T h i s s t r u t n o t only a f f e c t e d t h e flow f i e l d s i m u l a t i o n i n t h i s a r e a b u t a l s o a l t e r e d t h e plume e f f e c t p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e bottom of t h e o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e and wing lower s u r f a c e . A t t h e t i m e , t h e s e models were p r i m a r i l y used t o o b t a i n b a s e p r e s s u r e s . The a i r s t r u t was c o n s i d e r e d t o have a n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t on b a s e p r e s s u r e s , w i t h a secondary e f f e c t on forebody plume p r e s s u r e increments. However, t h i s s t r u t would g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e orbiter-ET channel p r e s s u r e s . A n a d d i t i o n a l c o l d plumes wind t u n n e l t e s t w i l l b e r u n t o update t h e power-on b a s e p r e s s u r e d a t a b a s e and o b t a i n channel p r e s s u r e s w i t h o u t t h e a i r s u p p l y s t r u t . Wind t u n n e l t e s t IA300 was r e c e n t l y r u n t o o b t a i n forebody b a s e plume e f f e c t p r e s s u r e data. Plumes were s c a l e d so t h a t a c t u a l component f l i g h t base p r e s s u r e s could b e o b t a i n e d . SSME plume a i r for t h e 1 p e r c e n t s c a l e model was r o u t e d through t h e t o p of t h e o r b i t e r w i t h t h e orbiter-ET channel a r e a clean ( t o resemble t h e launch c o n f i g u r a t i o n ) . P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were o b t a i n e d on t h e wing lower s u r f a c e and f u s e l a g e a s w e l l a s ET base and o t h e r launch v e h i c l e components. 67

The r e s u l t s of t e s t IA300 w i l l b e i n f l u e n c e d by model s c a l i n g and the u s e of a i r plumes a s t h e j e t g a s . However, t h e e f f e c t s of t h e s i m u l a t e d b a s e p r e s s u r e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e forebody l o a d s should b e adequate t o v e r i f y t h e suggested model.
The r e s u l t a n t l o a d d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i l l b e used t o develop t h e forebody p r e s s u r e s so

t h a t t h e i n t e g r a t e d , p r e d i c t e d l o a d s produce t h e f l i g h t l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a .
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The l o f t anomaly has been a t t r i b u t e d , i n p a r t , t o u n d e r p r e d i c t i o n of launch v e h i c l e p l u m e e f f e c t s on l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamics. F l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment data were checked and found t o be r e a s o n a b l e and r e p e a t a b l e and, i n a d d i t i o n , provided good t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n 6 t r u c t i o n . The l a c k of flow s i m u l a t i o n between t h e o r b i t e r and ET, a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h e r than p r e d i c t e d ET base pressures, is considered to be t h e cause of the longitudinal aerodynamic discrepancies.

A a n a l y t i c a l model has been developed t o d e s c r i b e t h e flow i n t h e channel n between t h e o r b i t e r and ET. The p r e s s u r e s i n t h i s a r e a were found t o be t i m e dependent and i n f l u e n c e d by ET b a s e p r e s s u r e s . C a l c u l a t i o n s u s i n g t h e d e r i v e d model, b u t w i t h o u t t h e time dependency, produce channel p r e s s u r e l e v e l s t h a t a g r e e w i t h f l i g h t measured p r e s s u r e s . The time dependence of t h e plume e f f e c t on ET base p r e s s u r e s is a p o s s i b l e c a u s e of t h e p r e s s u r e d i f f e r e n c e and was n o t measured d u r i n g flight tests due t o i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n l i m i t a t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e channel model and t e s t r e s u l t s can account f o r 52 p e r c e n t of t h e f l i g h t / p r e d i c t e d normal f o r c e increment and 43 p e r c e n t of t h e p i t c h i n g moment increment.
V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e p r e d i c t e d channel f l o w a n a l y t i c a l model w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d u s i n g t h e r e s u l t s of an a d d i t i o n a l c o l d plume wind t u n n e l t e s t . T h i s t e s t , d e s i g n a t e d IA300, u s e s a p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d plumes model, b u t w i l l t e s t w i t h o u t t h e orbiter-ET b l a d e s t r u t used i n o t h e r plumes t e s t s . T h i s f e a t u r e , p l u s t h e d u p l i c a t i o n of f l i g h t b a s e p r e s s u r e u s i n g c o l d g a s plumes, w i l l p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e plume e f f e c t on t h e channel flow f i e l d .

68

REFERENCES
1. 2.

SI) 72-SH-0060-2L, "Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Volume 2 , Launch Vehicle,"
Space Division, Rockwell International, Downey, California, 1981. DFIS DR 2398, "Results of Tests Using a 0.03-Scale HodeL ( 4 7 - O T S ) of t h e Space Shuttle Integrated Vehicle in The AEDC 16-Foot Transonic Propulsion Wind Tunnel (IA-105A) ," Space Division, Chrysler Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana, Nov. 1981.

69

SYMBOLS
a
speed of sound, f e e t p e r second p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t , p i t c h i n g moment/qSrefkref p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t , AP/q e f f e c t i v e length, f e e t Mach number

c ,
cP

R
M

i
P

mass f l o w r a t e , s l u g s p e r second
p r e s s u r e , pounds p e r s q u a r e f o o t dynamic p r e s s u r e , pounds per s q u a r e f o o t u n i v e r s a l gas c o n s t a n t , foot-pounds/slug

q
R

deg Rankins

S
T

c r o s s - s e c t i o n a r e a of stream tube, s q u a r e f e e t
temperature, deg Rankins

t

t i m e , seconds
t o t a l i n t e r n a l volume of channel model, S2 s p e c i f i c heat r a t i o density, slugfcubic f o o t

V

Y
P

Subscripts :
m

f r e e s tream c o n d i t i o n s entrance t o d i f f u s e r end of s u b s o n i c d i f f u s e r channel model e x i t reference local stagnation conditions

1
2

e
ref
8

Superscript:

*

local sonic conditions

70

322.5 X0236

k. (OUTER MOLD LINE)

1466.06

-------d

-

420.5

1789.557

X~2173.025

a
440

Figure 1.- Launch vehicle geometry.

-

400 -

360

-

sis-i ACTUAL'

EXTERNAL TANK SEPARATION

320 280

240 200 180

-

120 80

-

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

M A C H NUMBER

Figure 2.- STS-1 launch vehicle altitude-Mach p r o f i l e .

71

ORIGSNAL PAGE Pi:

OF POOR QUALITY

1

PREDICTED LINE NOMINAL
LINE AERO V A R

0.6
02

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

22

2.4

2.6

MACH NUMBER

Y

0

01

P
0

0.6

0.8

? 0

1.2

14

16

1.8

2.0

2.2

24

26

MACH NUMBER

Figure 3

.- F l i g h t

e x t r a c t e d aerodynamics.

THE INCREMENTAL FORCE ACTS MAINLY ON THE ORBITER 0.12

e
2.4

/

LAUNCH VEHICLE

006

0.04 0.02 0
I

ORBITER (IN THE PRESENCE OF ET & SRBsl
I
1

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

I 1A

1.6 1.8 MACH NUMBER MACH NUMBER 1.6 1.8
I
I

I

I

I

2.0

2.2

I

I

2.6

J

0.6 0

Oh
1

1.0
I

1.2
1

1.4
I

2.0
1

2.2
I

2.4
I

2.6
I

un r

ou
n e-

Xi

- 0.12
THE INCREMENTAL MOMENT ACTS MAINLY ON THE AFT END OF THE ORBITER

F i g u r e 4 . - Comparison of launch v e h i c l e and o r b i t e r d i f f e r e n c e s from predictions.

e

72

ORIGYVAL P.4GE
OF POOR QUAL!TY

0 06

0 04

CSRW
0 02

0 0
MACH
I , ,

2

,

,

I

I

,

. .. . ... ..
,
1 1 9

1 1 1

I

T

.

NOMINAL PREDICTIONS VARIATIONS OF NOMINAL PREDlCl7ONS FLIGHT DATA

-

.

.

-

.

.

.

-

.

-

.

-

-

-

.

SOLID LINE DOTTED LINE
X

0

-0

POSITIVE NORMAL FORCE

-0
06
08

10

12

14

16

18

20

2 2

24

26

MACH

F i g u r e 5.- Wing and elevon l o a d s from STS-2.

LAUNCH VEHICLE BASE AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT (STS.2)
NOMINAL PREDICTIONS VARIATIONS OF NOMINAL PREDICTIOYS FLIGHT DATA SOLID LINE DOTTED LINE X
l l

-

1

1

1

1 ‘ I

1

I

l

l

I

I

l

l

I

l

l

I

l

l

CA

-

0
20.000
40,000

60.000

80,000

100000

120000

140000

160000

ALT (FT)

F i g u r e 6 . - Launch v e h i c l e base a x i a l f o r c e from STS-2.

73

SSV TOTAL COEFFICIENT M = 1.1

0.08

*“r
0.02
n
v -

0.06

ACM 0.04

0.02

I

RSS

*

SRB
PITCH

M

nz

ALL
OTHERS

n -

RSS

q

SRB
PITCH

a

M ALL
OTHERS

F i g u r e 7.-

Effecr o f p o t e n t i a l instrument errors on e x t r a c t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s .

Figure 8.- Flow field model and orbiter-external tank aft attach hardware.

74

INLET ANALOGY

40

r

-

ATTACH STRUCTURE 62%

30
Y

AM=

1.o

NORMA SHOCK

ATTACH STRUCTURE

.1

2 cp

20

-

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mo F i g u r e 9.- Channel f l o w i n l e t analogy

-

t h e o r e t i c a l model.

SHOCK

'.
LARGE PLUMES HIGH BASE PRESSURES SMALL FLOW SEPARATION REGION CHANNEL SHOCK AFT

FLIGHT VEHICLE

--_-_TEST MODEL

SMALL PLUMES LOW BASE PRESSURES LARGE FLOW SEPARATION REGION CHANNEL SHOCK FORWARD PYLON BETWEEN ORBITER & ET ON PLUME MODEL

Figure 10.- D i f f e r e n c e s between f u l l s c a l e and model s c a l e .
t

75

BEAM
STRUCTURE

SEPARATEDF LOW

F i g u r e 11.- O r b i t e r - e x t e r n a l t a n k shock s t r u c t u r e development.

TANK

1.6

M = 1.10

Q

= -4

DEGREES

delB = 10

1.2

p=0
EXTERNAL TANK

*eOB=9

0.0

- -----

- ORBITER FUSELAGE BODY
AFT ATTACH

CP

0.4

CROSS BEAM \
/’

UMBILICAL

C
/’

- 0.4
\vI

/ =
I
I

y3
\

\.-

CAVITY

-,

’\

\J

- 0.8

I

I

0.2
XIL

0.4 0.6 FRACTION TANK LENGTH

0.8

D

F i g u r e 1 2 . - Channel f l o w analogy and e x t e r n a l t a n k and lower f u s e l a g e p r e s s u r e .

76

ORIG~NALPAGE r g OF POOR QUALITY

I
0
0.05

I
0.10

1 I 0.15 0.20 TIME (SEC)

I 0.25

1 0.30

a

F i g u r e 13.- Channel flow.

0.7

PRESSURE BUILD.UP DUE TO CHANNEL " FI LL-UP"

0.5

t
f STS-4 MEASUREMENT (V07P9484A)
0.1

0.3

-0

0.2

0.3 TIME (SEC)

0.4

0.5

0.6

F i g u r e 14.- Channel flow characteristics

-

variation of C

P

w i t h time.

77

k

N 8 4 1 0 1 2 1 -A&

TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSMENT OF ASCENT A R D N MC EOYA I CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH SYSTEM Kenneth S. Leahy McDonnell Doug1 as Technical Services Co. Houston, Texas
SUMMARY

In order t o investigate the impact of ascent element aerodynamics on t h e f l i g h t constraints of the Space Shuttle, a system of programs was developed which allowed the assessment of wind-tunnel data, the extraction o f aerodynamic coefficients, the ident:fication of c r i t i c a l structural load indicators and their margins, the calculation of mission-unique shaping parameters and the evaluation of prelaunch wind measurements. INTRODUCTION lhe Space Shuttle i s a highly complex launch configuration, wherein four separate elements are essentially flown in formation i n a h i g h dynamic pressure environment. This dictated development of a system of unique analysis tools provides v i s i b i l i t y into the element interface loading and their s e n s i t i v i t i e s to aerodynamic and environmental characteristics. During development and subsequent e application o f these tools (computer programs) w learned that the interface loads are the result of relatively small differences i n large numbers (airloads). Thus the effects of element aerodynamic uncertainties and in-flight winds produce profound deviations i n the interface loads. These potential deviations must be accounted f o r in detemining how t o f l y the vehicle t o minimize risk o f exceeding interface design requirements while realizing the maximum possible launch system performance capability. Accordingly, the system of programs that was developed allowed:
'

1) assessment of preflight wind tunnel t e s t data and i t s processing i n t o a

component design d a t a base,

2)

determination o f mission unique trajectory shaping parameters, identification o f c r i t i c a l structural load indicators, t h e i r margins and t h e i r sensitivities to element aerodynamic uncertainties, system dispersions and in-flight winds,

3)

4 ) evaluation of prelaunch wind measurements for go/no go decisions and, 5 ) postfl ight extraction of vehicle and component aerodynamic coefficients.

O E VE VR IW The body of this paper will concern i t s e l f w i t h the identification of c r i t i c a l load indicators and how they are used to determine shaping parameter requirements. The other topics mentioned i n the Introduction will be covered briefly i n the Applications Section.

Preceding page blank

79

ORIGINAL PAGE f8 OF POOR Q U A L m

First the basic interface loads calculation technique will be discussed which forms the backbone of the e n t i r e system of assessment programs. Then t h i s technique i s used in the development of uncertainty models which are a basic input to the Capability Box program. This process i s depicted i n Figure 1 and will be explained in i t s own section. INTERFACE LOAD CALCULATION TECHNIQUE In order to develop a tool w i t h which to investigate Space Shuttle ascent f l i g h t constraints, an approach was adopted whereby the Orbiter, right and l e f t solid rocket boosters (SRB) were "isolated upon," each i n i t s t u r n . B this i t i s meant t h a t the y equations of motion were written for each element under consideration as i f i t were an isolated body. The driving functions for these equations are the external forces on the element i t s e l f (aerodynamics, thrust, g r a v i t y ) and the c o n t r i b u t i o n s from the interface f i t t i n g / s t r u t loads. This has the effect o f transforming an internal reaction type force (interface load) i n t o an external driving function. These equations take the form:

C
j = l~

F

~
~

~ + ~i G
~

~

~
~
-+

i

j
~ i

F
-+

~
-f

-+

lpi +

.;
1

x 1;s =
+

i

M

~

M ~

where N i i s the number o f interface loads f o r element i and G i i s the gravity term. Usually equations o f motions are set up t o be integrated for unknown positions and rates. I n our application however, the inertia (acceleration) and thrust terms are assumed t o be known in order t o solve for either the interface loads or the aerodynamic forces and moments. These equations can be solved for the preflight component and interface loads using the wind tunnel element aerodynamic data base. Two points are worth n o t i n g :
1) The orbiter i s attached t o the External Tank (ET) by means of seven s t r u t s (see F i g . 2 ) b u t Eqs. (1) provide only s i x relationships between them. This t h e n i s a n underdetermined structure and a seventh "redundancy" equation has been provided by a detailed structural analysis program.
2)

Each SRB attaches t o the ET a t a forward ball j o i n t and a t three locations near station 1073 (see Fig. 2 ) . Allowing a triad of three orthogonal loads t o represent the forward thrust f i t t i n g , the six Eqs. (1) are sufficient for a solution.
UNCERTAINTY MODELS

With the general purpose loads calculation tool in hand, i t was necessary to assess the full spectrum o f uncertainties which logically f a l l into two ( 2 ) categories, deterministic and probabilistic.

80

+
+

N,
~ ~ ~j = l ~ i

X F STRUT) ~ ~

~

~

*

Deterministic Errors

- measured atmospheric'data, includinq winds, for which measured d a t a existed and which would be sampled many times prior t o launch.

Probabilistic Errors - these a r e composed o f : 1) subsystem dispersions, 20 contributors composed predominantly of autopilot dispersions and SRB propellant temperature variations, 2 ) element aerodynamic uncertainties, and 3 ) a wind persistence e f f e c t . O u r standard s i x degree-of-freedom (DOF) Space Shuttle s i m u l a t i o n was interfaced w i t h t h e element aerodynamic d a t a base and the loads equations. I t was used t o produce nominal and dispersed l o a d values which will be discussed. The uncertaintlr g r o u p termed subsystem dispersions was run i n the 6 DOF simulator and the load histories for each simulation stored on permanent disc. A t the completion o f this ,;cries, the delta l o a d histories (dispersed-nominal) were computed and then reduced using root sum square ( r s s ) across the group. These r s s delta load histories due t o SlJbSyStem dispersions were then stored for future use. See Figure 1.
A program was written t o calculate the delta loads due t o a l l element aerodynamic Lincertainties a s a whole. F i r s t , the m a t r i x of s e n s i t i v i t i e s of interface loads t o element aero coefficients i s determined ( A loadj/A c0efficient.j). Then using uncerta-inties from the Space Shuttle Ascent Aerodynamic Data Book (Ref. 1) in b o t h coefficient value and p o i n t of application, a combinational technique i s employed t o o b t a i n a s e t of t o t a l delta loads. See Table 1 f o r a l o o k a t these equations and Table 2 f o r sample program o u t p u t .

e

Sets of: 150 measured wind profiles representing a r e a l i s t i c s t a t i s t i c a l sampling (Ref. 2 ) are available f o r every m o n t h o f the year for b o t h the Eastern and Western Test Ranges (ETR and IJTR). S i x DOF trajectory simulation runs have been made f o r selected months a t ETR for 150 winds sets a n d the interface load histories saved. An empirically determined factor was then multiplied by the standard deviations of the l o c d histories t o obtain a 3-hour wind persistence effect. This time interval was chosen a ; i t corresponds t o the l a s t tine prior t o an actual launch t h a t wind data can be t(3ken for assessment. A t t h i s p o i n t , the delta loads due t o subsystem dispersions, aerodynamic uncertainties and wind persistence are reduced using the r s s t o o b t a i n tlie p r o b a b i l i s t i c e f f e c t . See Figure 1.
THE "CAPABILITY BOX" PROGRAM

I n order t o make prelaunch determinations and predictions i t was desired t o separate the probabilistic effects above from t h e deterministic wind contribution. Tne poini: o f departure for t h i s operation i s a set of limit load values supplied t o tlie Ascent F1 i g h t Systems Intergration Group by the Rockwell International Structures Division. A parameter called the wind allowable i s obtained by diminishing the limit load by the r s s of the three probabilistic e f f e c t s : subsystem dispersion, element awodynatiiic uncertainty and wind persistence. Quantities like limit load do not w f e r to ultimate capability b u t t o a load t h a t may be reached before there would be any concern f o r t h e integrity of the structure. Thus, the wind allowable i s the amount of protection t h a t remains against a severe or unlikely wind a f t e r everything e ' s e s t a t i s t i c a l l y has been taken i n t o account.

The next consideration was t o find parameters common to a l l the interface loads in terms o f which boundaries could be established. I n keeping w i t h industry practice, dynamic Fressure times angle o f a t t a c k ( s a ) and angle of sideslip ( q o ) were deemed
81

appropriate. I n order t o calculate values for these parameters, the followinq scenario was devised. The a y e coverage i n the element aerodynamic d a t a base i s -8 deg ~1 < + 4 deg and -6 deg 5 e < t 6 deg, each i n two degree increments. This i s equivalect t o the matrix of the perimeter points which are shown in Fig. 3 with center a t CI = -2 deg, B = 0 deg. In order t o investigate the trends in the loads, a f u l l s e t of trajectory conditions corresponding t o a particular Mach number were f e d i n t o the C a p a b i l i t y Box program. The program calculates the loads a t the ( - 2 , O ) p o i n t and a t the perimeter point a n d a t a p o i n t halfway i n between. These three points constitute a ray t h r o u g h which a parabola i s passed t o determine t h ? radial distance required t o obtain the wind allowable value. The radial distance a l o n g the ray i s then reconverted t o a n 0, a n d 8 and multiplied by t h e dynamic pressure approp r i a t e to t h a t ray. A sinusoidal curve w i t h offset i s used t o describe t h e v a r i a t i o n of q w i t h wind azimuth. This process i s continued a t each of the 28 rays around the perimeter. The locus of points i n the qtr - q 8 plane i s termed the c a p a b i l i t y curve f o r the particular load. The capability curves for a l l o f the f i t t i n g , s t r u t , and component load indicators are superimposed and the odd-shaped figure interior t o a l l the curves simultaneously i s called the capability box ( F i g . 4 ) . This analysis i s repeated a t 1 2 selected Mach numbers spanning the h i g h dynamic pressure p o r t i o n o f f i r s t stage f l i g h t .

I n the course of evaluating the perimeter of the data m a t r i x described above, many h i g h l y off-nominal U , 8, q s e t s are encountered. A unique feature o f t h i s program makes a d j u s t m e n t s to t h e t r a j e c t o r y d a t a t o account f o r the aerodynamics a t these arbitrary perimeter t e s t points. The approach i s t o calculate the total thrust moment required t o balance the aerodynamic moment and produce the same vehicle motion. The mixing logic of the f l i g h t control software i s used t o a p p o r t i o n control a u t q o r i t y t o the main engines and the solid rocket boosters; an i t e r a t i o n scheme i s employed t o converge on a solution. Thus, a l l five engines are "regimbaled" i n b o t h pitch and yaw t o accomplish the moment-balance. This accurately compensates for the high angles of a t t a c k and sideslip encountered while scanning the d a t a matrix.
The ( q w , q 6 ) pairs are stored f o r the several Mach numbers o f i n t e r e s t from the larae d a t a s e t accumulated during the trajectory sims of the 150 measured winds for the appropriate month. An off-line program i s used t o calculate characteristics o f e l l i p s e s which encompass a certain percentile (say 95th) o f the d a t a . See Fig. 5 fGr examples. These e l l i p s e s are transfered o n t o transparencies and used i n conjunction w i t h t h e capability boxes t o identify the upper t o lower q u travel and r i g h t t o l e f t q B travel (Fig. 6 ) . This information i s p u t into the form o f a Mach history o f q L L and q p corridors through which the particular mission can be flown. Midway t h r o u p h t h i s envelop gives the mission-unique shaping parameters w h i c h minimize t h e probabi 1i t y of violating the structural constraints of the Shuttle Launch System. These shaping parameters can be converted t o "I-loads" and subsequently stored ir? the onboard f l i g h t software t o provide f i r s t stage steering commands.
APPLICATIONS

Day-of-Launch Wind Monitoring
A series o f programs have been organized and used in conjunction w i t h each o f the Shuttle f l i g h t s . These programs accept a wind a l t i t u d e profile measured j u s t hours (or. days) before the launch and f l y i t in the 6 DOF simulator. There the interface loads are calculated and plotted i n comparison with the w i n d allowaSles. Any exceedance of a wind allowable due t o a measured wind represents a possible launch h o l d . For this purpose the Launch Systems Evaluation Adviscry Team immediately
82

i s made aware of thesc deterninat:!,' A rod y n am i c Plod e 1 R (1 1-1 i i7 I i l i p a c t As s e s sFie n t e During the wind tunnel testing f o r element aerodynamic coefficients i n the l a t e 1 . 9 7 0 ' ~ i~ t became advantageous t o develop a t o o l t o be used f o r r a p i d assessment o f these several data bases. For this !xirpsse, a version of the basic loads program was assembled t o evaluate the varioiici iriclir:iitnr.s a t 51 points around q a , q 6 wind response loci (known across the Sh1.it.t; e p!'ogt-ani a s "squatcheloids"). These results at various; Mach numbers represented a 5 i g v i - i - i c a n t swath through the data base for inspection. Figure 7 shows cases where s h i f t s and inconsistencies were spotlighted
f o r further investigation.
I n other instances the load calculations have been used t o q u i c k l y analyze the d a t a i n different ways. W i t h an element d a t a base i n the neighborhood o f a halfm i l l i o n values, this can be a 1ifesdiL2cr*. t o t example, the Integrated Vehicle Baseline Coefficients, Cycle 2 ( I V B C - 2 ) was a t r i y h l y touted d a t a base derived largely from the IA-135 wind tunnel t e s t results 8 1 1 df r o m n d n i p u l a t i o n techniques thouqht t o be s t a t e of the industry a t the t i n e . However, the calculation of the forward pitchplane orthogonal orbiter/ET l o a d (FTO1) often demonstrated unrealistic sensitivity t o inboard and outboard elevon deflections (see Figure 8 ) . As a consequence of these results i t was learned t h a t there must be a reasonableness constraint applied when smoothing the wind tunnel t e s t d a t d a s a furlction of elevon deflection: the aerodynamic center (AC, /i'C,, ) of the F l c v o t i milst remain consistent w i t h i t s physical 1 oca t i cl n . e e

Postfl i g h t Aerodynamic Data Extraction Looking back a t the isolation equations (1) i t can be seen t h a t all terms except the aerodynamic ones can be supplied directly or derived from f l i g h t instrumentation: angular accelerations and rates a l o n g w i t h preflight mass properties yield the l e f t sides of the equations while engine chamber pressure, propellant flow rates and s t r u t strain gauge measurements cover the terms o n the r i g h t side. This allows the equations to be solved f o r the aerodynamic forces and moments (six equations i n six unknowns) and finally for the aerodynamic coefficients. This aerodynamic d a t a extract,ion process has been exercised using sensor d a t a from the f i r s t four Shuttle f l i g h t s a t nine Mach numbers across the h i g h dynamic pressure regime. A t each Mach number
arid i n t e r c e p t s o f these linear curve f i t s were used t o o b t a i n deltas with which the standard aerodynamic d a t a base was adjusted.
t h e coefficient d a t a were f i t t e d w i t h l e a s t - s q u a r e s curves ( s e e F i g u r e 9 ) .
The slopes

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The interface/component/strut loads discussed throughout t h i s paper, while beinq valid concepts worthy of consideration, are a macroscopic effect. The f i t t i n g s and s t r u t s dre structures in themselves, capable o f more detailed analysis. Algorithms have been developed and mechanized to describe the stresses and strains i n these members. These new indicators have been monitored f o r each of the Shuttle f l i g h t s and are being incorporated into an upgraded version of the Capability Box program. The ultimate goal of t h i s and related exercises i s to reduce the amount of work required t o assess a wind measured prior t o a Shuttle launch.

83

REFERENCES

1.
2.

Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Element Component. Vol I1 - Launch Vehicle, Rept. No. SD72-SH-0060-2L, Rockwell International, 1981.
Smith, O . E . :

%FC Jimsphere Wind Data Tape for Design Verification. MSFC Memorandum S 8 A-AERO-YA-98-71, Apri 1 1976.

a

OF

07'-,?-!.-.- ;g
>-7y

TABLE 1 .- T Y P I C A L ATTACH LOAD COMBINATIONAL EQUATIONS
A ATTACH LOADS DUE TO NORMAL FORCE UNCERTAINTY

C ATTACFi LOADS DUE TO PITCHING-MOMENT UNCERTAINTY

I
AFTIX)zpWR = t

h ATTACH LOADS DUE TO

POWER-ON

AERO U N C E R T A I N T E

{[i"::
~

+ 0.2608

'.' 7..N) ] "
aFTIX

2

ET

ET

RSS COMBINATIONS

FTIX

= t

{

AFTIX*

t

~ F T2 I X+ ~L F T I X & ~ ~
Y

2 2 + ~ F T I Y . ~+ CFTIX~~ + A F T I X ~ ~ + 'rn

" N

n

e

A F T2 I X ~ ~ ~ ~

ACAJ2

+ Z[vO.1'34)

CC

( 0.1 94 ) L C N ~ '2

'>'

85

T A E L E 2.-

STRUT LOAD SENSITIVITIES TO ORBITER AERODYNAMIC C O E F F I C I E t j T S

ITEM
P1 P2 P3
P4

CA

CY
41.16 -41.13 11.71
-20.50

CN
-41.07 -41 .07 56.03 55.96 -18.68 -18.72
-0.05

CL L
-3.89 2.97 508.41 -522.23 165.56 -167.25 70.76 -1 518.11 3398.73 -5849.86 1519.20 -3401.47 5854.29 52.59 63.25

CLM

CLN

-7.17 -7.17 33.02 32.98 -64.63 -64.66
-0.02

-87.53 -87.56 345.59 345.43

61.90 -61 a4 -1 60.44
92.70

.

'

P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 201 0 3031

-20.33 20.65 32.32 -15.55 -49.26 43.40 15.02 48.72 -43.42 347.94 420.48

-61 .15 -61.20
-0.04 -37.78 248.13 -728.68 -37.02 247.02 -726.45 3.22 3.86

-127.49 128.53 252.32 342.75 531.48 -224.56 -344.45 -533.47 224.77 640.86

15.46 9.89 13.78 15.55 10.08 13.67 41.72 50.07

202.52 -228.17 85.45 203.23 229.59 87.98 0.97 1.16

772.66

86

TRPJECTORV C 3 t l C l T I C N S AT SELECTED WLH NUMBER5

I

CALCULATE LOADS DUC IO A i L AERO UtlIXPT

-I--

b

6 H I D POINT5 ON J t h R A T

I

PARABOLIC INTERPOLATlOl FOR (. Q . q.) AT WINO ALLDUKILE

SUPERINPOSE CAPABILITY CUR'/ES CAPkBILITY BOX

Figure 1.-

Capability box flow diagrams.

87

Figure 2.- Interface strut identification.

Standard aerodynamic data matrix

a

- * - Lwa -

L

0
0

0

0

OJGp04

P

Lo a -Lo P

.

.
/

a

-*

0 2

ALRSS = (AL2AER0
0 0
a

' AL

S/D + A L Z U / J %

0

0
0

0 -4

a

*

=-a

up

+

2

-*

- 2

.
0 -4

.
0 6 0 -2 0
B

.
0
2

.
@
4

a

@ -6

P

0
-6

6

8

Figure 3.- Aerodynamic data matrix.
88

ORIGINAL PAGE I$ OF POOR Q U A L l N
I I I
1 3 2
I

I
,

'

I

I

uu

+
I I I I I

I I I

a2
3

nn

NJ n

,

I
-%

!

I I IC+

I

X

i
'"

I

I

t
I I

+
YY
I

I
I

I
4)

I

I I

+ I
I

I I

Y

i
I

X

:

I

Y

c
w*
Y
Y

ww

w

+o
N+

Y

U

Y

.+

+

c
K
I

= J

0

I ? -

iI

rc
U
2

0:
3 '

I

I I

I
I

I
C l l l

I I

1
!
c
c
C I I I

I

!
I

' I O
. I e

LTb

C I I I

e
.

I

tU
I

0 a

m

i h'

u
I,

89

.-.. .

l

I

90

4
3

2

1
0
-1

-2

-3

-4
-5

-6

I

1
Mach number

I

I

Figure 6.-

STS-1 Qa f l i g h t constraint profile.

91

1 -

-----

I A 144 IVBC-2

-3

t

/K -1

' :1

/ 1

\

3

-

-

-0

lCCU

I "

I

v t

0

-200

-

-400

0

90
T',.

180
deg

270

360

0

90

180
q , deg

270

360

( a ) Rigid body orbiter/ET attach load indicators; tl = 1.25.

-----

-1A144

(no g l o v e )

I V B C - 2 (with glove)

-20

&

CI

*O

PI

x

F/
c '

+ O I

-200

p- ,
0 90

,
180

,
270

,
360

0

n, deg

0

: 270
90

180

360

11.

deg

( b ) Right wing root load indicators.

Figure 7.- Sample load indicators,
92

AFT01 = FTO1)lO/,

Got
u l
.I

I -

80% L i m i t l o a d

0

piE3-I
(40 p o i n t s )

+

*r O
-20

0

1(34 points)

o

n
Y

c
L

0

a

2o
0

I

-20

I
-8

I -4

I
0

I
4

Angle o f a t t a c k . deg

r t
i

L

1-1

(17 points)
A u

I m

A
V

A

W

v

m

-8

-4

0

4

Angle o f a t t a c k , deg

F i g u r e 8.-. E f f e c t o f +6O outboard elevon d e f l e c t i o n on

FTOl ;

!I

1.25,

q = 700, 6 ,

= loo.

93

M

.-I.. ..... . . : . .

: /: , . . . . _ . : _._. .. : , /. . .,‘:. . . . . . . . .. .

7
.-. I

i

. .
$ , -%; : , , ,

/+. > . ,&
.,._I_

__

, :<’

RLPtiR
d

ALPliR
Ln 0

0 = STS-1

0

I
0 0

X = STS-2
I

..

..

= STS-3

1-4

E

0
#

0
I

N

0
I

.o

I

I

I

I \

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

:

0

0 . ~ 00.05

0.10-

0.15

0.20

0.2s

ALPHA

CN

Figure 9.- Least squares curve f i t s o f shuttle f l i g h t data.

94

e

SUPERSONIC LOADS DUE TO SHUTTLE-ORBITER/

EXTERNAL-TANK ATTACHMENT STRUCTURES
C. L. W. Edwards, P. J. B o b b i t t , and W. J. Monta NASA Langley Research C e n t e r Hampton, V i r g i n i a

SUMMARY

A l a r g e v a r i e t y of t e s t s were conducted d u r i n g development of t h e Space S h u t t l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s t r e n g t h , f a t i g u e , and t h e r m a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e t : h e r m a l - p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m of t h e o r b i t e r . The p r e s e n t p a p e r d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s e a r c h and a n a l y s i s c a r r i e d o u t t o a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e and s i m u l a t e t h e f l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i m m e d i s t e l y ahead of t h e e x t e r n a l - t a n k a t t a c h m e n t s t r u c t u r e s . The h i g h e s t known a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e l o a d s o c c u r i n t h e s e r e g i o n s and tests t o i n s u r e t h e a b i l i t y of t h e t i l e s t o w i t h s t a n d t h e s e a c o u s t i c l o a d s , p l u s t h o s e due t o p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t , were t h o u g h t n e c e s s a r y . F i r s t f l i g h t - c r i t i c a l wind-tunnel t e s t s were t h e r e f o r e cond u c t e d i n t h e Langley 8-Foot T r a n s o n i c P r e s s u r e Tunnel (8-Ft. T P T ) , which s i m u l a t e d t h e time h i s t o r i e s of S h u t t l e a s c e n t l o a d s on t i l e a r r a y s bonded t o s t r u c t u r e s which a c c u r a t e l y d u p l i c a t e d t h o s e o f t h e S h u t t l e . The timc-varying f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s were p r o v i d e d by c o n t r o l l i n g t h e d e f l e c t i o n - a n g l e h i s t o r y of d i f f u s e r s p o i l e r f l a p s i n a n automated way. T i m e h i s t o r i e s of t h e c r i t i c a l - l o a d p a r a m e t e r s imposed on t h e t i l e a r r a y s i n t h e t u n n e l are compared w i t h t h o s e e x p e c t e d i n f l i g h t .

INTRODUCTION

A l a r g e v a r i e t y of t e s t s were conducted t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s t r e n g t h , f a t i g u e , and t h e r m a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e t h e r m a l - p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m of t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r .
I n c l u d e d w e r e t e s t s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l components, s i n g l e - t i l e

s y s t e m s , and t i l e

a r r a y s . Materials, v i b r o a c o u s t i c , aerodynamic l o a d , and aerodynamic h e a t i n g tests w e r e c m d u c t e d w i t h m o d e l s of v a r y i n g s i z e and c o m p l e x i t y i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y , i n f l i g h t , and i n many typc.s o f wind t u n n e l s . The p r e s e n t p a p e r d e s c r i b e s s u p e r s o n i c wind-tunnel tests which were conducted t o d e f i n e f l o w d e t a i l s and a i d i n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r the s i m u l a t i o n i n t h e Langley 8-Foot T r a n s o n i c P r e s s u r e Tunnel of t h e time h i s t o r i e s of S h u t t l e a s c e n t l o a d s on t i l e s bonded t o r e a l i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . This t y p e o f t e s t , d e s i g n a t e d h e r e i n as t h e Combined Loads O r b i t e r T e s t s (CLOT), had n e v e r b e f o r e been a t t e m p t e d i n a wind t u n n e l of t h i s s i z e ( r e f . 1). The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e 8-Ft. TPT t e s t s were t o v e r i f y t h a t t h e t i l e s would remain a t t a c h e d t o t h e f l i g h t s t r u c t u r e s under t h e s i m u l a t e d f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , t o compare measured and p r e d i c t e d t i l e and s t r a i n - i s o l a t i o n - p a d ( S I P ) l o a d s and r e s p o n s e s , and t o d e t e r m i n e t i l e r o u g h n e s s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a f t e r s i n g l e - and r e p e a t e d - a s c e n t m i s s i o n s . The p r o c e s s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e t i m e - v a r y i n g aerodynamic environment on t h e t i l e a r r a y ( c a l l e d p a n e l ) j u s t ahead of t h e forward e x t e r n a l t a n k / S h u t t l e - o r b i t e r a t t a c h m e n t yoke i s d e s c r i b e d s u b s e q u e n t l y . T h i s p r o c e s s r e q u i r e d t h e u s e o f p r e v i o u s l y a c q u i r e d p r e s s u r e data on t h e a s c e n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,
95

as well as data from supersonic wind-tunnel tests of a subscale bipod carried out as a separate part of this program. Precalibration and calibration panels used to obtain detailed loads data, to calibrate the instrumentation, and to ascertain and modify the actual pressure environment in the tunnel are also briefly discussed. Finally, the methodology used to provide the required time-varying free-stream and local conditions is described.
SYMBOLS

cP

- P --

- P ,
qm

D
h

diameter of bipod legs, in. height of bipod yoke, in. (= 1.205D) length of Shuttle orbiter, in. length of separation ahead of bipod, in. Mach number static pressure, psi nondimensional quantity used in correlating pressure data ahead of bipod total pressure, atm dynamic pressure, 1/2 pV2, psf time, sec velocity, ft/sec dimensional distance measured forward from center of bipod, in. nondimensional quantitj csed in correlating pressure data ahead of bipod dimensional distance to separated flow footprint measured forward from center of bipod, in. distance measured rearward along centerline of Shuttle from nose of Shuttle, or distance measured rearward along false floor from leading edge, in. distance measured forward from face of bipod, in.

L
LSEP

M

P
PSCALE Pt
q

t

V

X
XSCALE

XSEP
X

X'

96

Y

l a t e r a l d i s t a n c e measured from c e n t e r l i n e of S h u t t l e , i n .
r a t i o o f s p e c i f i c h e a t s (= 1 . 4 i n t h i s s t u d y ) d i v i d i n g s t r e a m l i n e a n g l e , deg d i f f u s e r - f l a p d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e , deg m e r i d i a n a n g l e d e f i n i n g s e p a r a t e d - f l o w f o o t p r i n t , deg density, s l u g s l f t

Y
6
6F

4
P

3

s h o c k detachment d i s t a n c e measured a t i n t e r s e c t i o n of b a s e f l a n g e w i t h bipod l e g , i n .

' S C CK PH

p r e s s u r e jump a c r o s s bow shock ahead of b i p o d

Subscripts:
LOCAL

q u a n t i t y measured i n s e p a r a t e d - f l o w r e g i o n ahead of bipod q u a n t i t y measured immediately ahead of s e p a r a t e d - f l o w r e g i o n ahead of bipod v a l u e o f p r e s s u r e i n p l a t e a u r e g i o n j u s t downstream of f l o w - s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t ahead of b i p o d v a l u e a t a s i n g l e p o i n t ( f o r p a n e l 20C, 4 bipod d i a m e t e r s ahead of f a c e of b i p o d (12 i n . f o r a h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d ) ) free-stream conditions

ONSET

PI,ATF,AU

1

00

Abbreviations :
CLOT

combined loads o r b i t e r t e s t s d i a g n o s t i c f 1i g h t i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n o v e r a l l f l u c t u a t i n g p r e s s u r e l e v e l , dB pounds p e r c u b i c f o o t
r o o t mean s q u a r e

DF I
OFPL
PCF

r s m

sI P
STS-1

s t r a i n i s o l a t i o n pad f i r s t f l i g h t of s p a c e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m

97

UPWI

Langley U n i t a r y P l a n Wind Tunnel

8-Ft.

TPT Langley 8-Foot T r a n s o n i c P r e s s u r e Tunnel
TEST-PANEL SELECTION

A t o t a l of f o u r s e p a r a t e areas on t h e bottom of t h e S h u t t l e w e r e c o n s i d e r e d a t v a r i o u s t i m e s f o r t e s t i n g , b u t s i m u l a t i o n c o n c e p t s and hardware werc clcvclopr.' € o r o n l y t h r e e . Near t h e end of t h e program one o f t h e s e was dropped, 1.eaving tI-I,zf two p a n e l s which had p r e v i o u s l y been d e c l a r e d c r i t i c a l f o r t h e f i r s t f l i g h t Ci: br. t e s t e d . The l a t t e r two p a n e l s are l o c a t e d ahead of and behind t h e forward e::ti-i:i?dt a n k / S h u t t l e - o r b i t e r c o n n e c t i o n b i p o d (yoke) and a r e among t h e most c r i t i c a l p:ii?e'i on t h e S h u t t l e . L o c a l l a m i n a r h e a t i n g rates d u r i n g e n t r y are e x t r e m e l y higl-i;, +LP< i f t h e t i l e l o a d s d u r i n g a s c e n t c a u s e t h e s u r f a c e t o become r o u g h , t h e n p r c m a t u r c t r a n s i t i o n t o t u r b u l e n t flow could occur. Consequently, t h e h e a t of e n t r y is i n c r e a s e d o v e r t h e downstream areas, and t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y of t h e o r b i t e r c o u l d be j e o p a r d i z e d . The t h i r d p a n e l , f o r which a s i m u l a t i o n c o n c e p t and h;irc!vare were d e v e l o p e d , w a s l o c a t e d j u s t ahead of t h e i n b o a r d a i l e r o n h i n g e arid was cliosen b e c a u s e o f l a r g e p r e d i c t e d i n p l a n e d e f l e c t i o n s (which w e r e l a t e r found t o b e o v e r l y c o n s e r v a t i v e ) and lift-off acoustic pressures. S k e t c h e s showing tlie locat ion ittlci geometry of t h e t h r e e p a n e l s are g i v e n i n f i g u r e s 1 and 2. P a n e l 20A, shown i n t h e lower m i d d l e o f f i g u r e 1, i s l o c a t e d a b o u t 2 f e e t behind t h e b i p o d ; p a n e l 2OC whose f l o w environment and s i m u l a t i o n c r i t e r i a are t h e primary s u b j e c t s of this p a p e r , i s j u s t ahead o f t h e b i p o d and i n c l u d e s a p o r t i o n of t h e l a n d i n g - g e a r d o o r s : and p a n e l 20D ( f i g . 2 ) i s p o s i t i o n e d at t h e rear o f t h e wing ahead of t h e elevon h i n g e l i n e . P a n e l 20D, which i n c l u d e s t h e t i l e a r r a y i n t h e " t e s t area" i n f i g u r e 2 , h a s a w i d t h o f 49 i n c h e s and a l e n g t h o f 65 i n c h e s . A f o u r t l i F m e : ( 2 0 G j , which i s shown on t h e bottom r i g h t - h a n d s i d e of f i g u r e 1, w a s dropped e a r l y i n the program, b e c a u s e t h e a s c e n t environment f o r p a n e l 20A w a s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e more severe.

7.

The p a n e l ahead o f t h e b i p o d (20C) i n c l u d e s , as n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , a p o r t i o n <if t h e d o o r s o f t h e forward l a n d i n g - g e a r compartment. These d o o r s are c o n s t r u c t e d of a t h i c k honeycomb sandwich material ( s e e f i g . 3) and are so r i g i d t h a t s t r u c t u r a l v i b r a t i o n s were n o t a c o n c e r n . However, b u f f e t l o a d s due t o e x t r e m e l y h i g h u n s t e a d y - p r e s s u r e l e v e l s caused by t h e bow s h o c k ahead of t h e bipod a t s u p e r s o r , i c s p e e d s and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of i n c r e a s e d s u r f a c e r o u g h n e s s due t o r e p e a t e d l o a d s w e r e concerns.

SHUTTLE TRAJECTORIES

The l e v e l and d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s o v e r t h e o r b i t e r , t h e i n t e n s i t y and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f dynamic p r e s s u r e s , and t h e p o s i t i o n and s t r e n g t h of s h o c k s a l l depend on free-stream Mach number and s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e l e v e l s p r o v i d e d by t h e t r a j e c t o r y as w e l l as v e h i c l e a t t i t u d e s ( a n g l e s o f a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p ) which r e s u l t from c o n t r o l i n p u t s and winds. Over t h e y e a r s , p r i o r t o t h e STS-1 f l i g l l t , hundreds of t r a j e c t o r i e s were p o s t u l a t e d t o examine t h e e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s wind

J r p f i l c s , p l y Loads, o r b i t . : l parameters, and u n c e r t a i n t i e s i r i t h r u s t l e v e l s and 1eroctjn;mi c cocf f i c i e n t s . F o r t h e CLOT, t h e t i m e - v a r y i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s were b a s e d 3n t n c S ' l s - l n o m i n a l - t r a j e c t o r y q u a n t i t i e s shown i n f i g u r e 4 . Note t h a t t i m e s t a r t s at 30 s e c o n d s i n this p l o t , which c o r r e s p o n d s t o a Mach number of 0 . 6 , a Iynaniic p r e s s u r c o f 350 p s f , and a s t a t i c p r e s s u r e of 1 p s i . Dynamic p r e s s u r e 1 reachcs a maximum of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 580 p s f a t 45 s e c o n d s and remains n e a r l y ,cbnstarit f o r t h e n e x t 25 s e c o n d s . I t was assumed i n t h e CLOT program t h a t t r a j e c t o r i e s w i t h h i g h e r o r lowcr maximum dynamic p r e s s u r e c o u l d b e s i m u l a t e d i n 1 1 . ~w i n d t u n n e l by r a i s i n g o r l o w e r i n g t h e p r e s s u r e l e v e l ( t o t a l head) a t which t h e t e s t \ a s run.
i ie svmbols i n f i g u r e 4 r e p r e s e n t t h e v a l u e s of p,, q3,, and M , actually S t a t i c pressure was s l i g h t l y overpredicted f o r 2 b t a i i - e d i n t h e f l i g h t o f STS-1. .ALII 1 ) 1. in:(--, an& u n d e r p r e d i c t e d f o r l a t e r t i m e s ; Mach number was i n e x c e l l e n t a g r e e . -nL-;itI ,) i i l i c i l a b o u t 45 s e c o n d s , when f l i g h t v a l u e s began t o exceed t h o s e o f t h e p r - e d i c t c d :ioniinnl. These s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n Mach number a r t a m p l i f i e d i n t o l a r y e r d i f ' f e r e i i c e s i n dynamic p r e s s u r e by t h e dependence of dynamic p r e s s u r e on Mach t i ~ i ~ l ~ t ~ ~r1-c.d. Tlie a g r e c n e n t between t h e p r e d i c t e d and f l i g h t t r a j e c t o r i e s shown r i n I ' i g u r e G c l i ~ a r - l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t s i m u l a t i o n s b a s e d on t h e p r c d i c t c d STS-1 n o m i n a l t r a j a t o r y were well-founded.
s-11

PRES SURE D 1:STRIBUTI O N S

iimiber or wind-tunnel t e s t s were c a r r i e i l o u t by t h e S h u t t l e P r o j e c t on presstirti m c . d e l s c f t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r and ascent c o n f i g u r a t i o n . However, most were ~ ~ o r i d a c i efor t h e p u r p o s e of o b t a i n i n g s t r u c t u r a l l o a d s , and n o t TPS t i l e d ... , . .LG;CS, 1 Iii. 1) t t ? r rcquirc.s s i . g n i . F i c a n t l y more r e s o l u t i o n , n o t o n l y t o o b t a i n ;: t t ~IL-;?.:::.L cc- I(,xi;;.l-s :1r.~c1 g r a d i e n t s , b u t a l s o f o r s h o c k s t r e n g t h s and s h o c k .. ~~~::~tii:c,;,ti.. tl;e st-:iri o f t h e CLOT program, t h e o n l y d a t a a v a i l a b l e were from 11$-!:!+ :: TA105A, T A l 0 5 E , and Z A 8 1 . :; F i g u r e 5 shows c e n t e r l i n e ~ ~ ~ : : ~ i - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ! tl::?:;~ . ~r i i s f o r Nach numbers from 0 . 6 t o 1 . 4 . ?1.ibr;1 t ~ ~ t sLs It r;huu.L(~ b e 11oLed t h a t t h e c i r c l e s y m b o l s , d e n o t e d as IA105A d a t a , are n o t all a c t u a l data lioiillt5, b u t p o i n t s t a k e n f r o m p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d fairings of the data. Anothc!r t e s t (OA253) which i n c l u d e d t r a n s o n i c data had been run, b u t t h e d a t a were n o t y q 2 t a v a i l a b l e . A s p e c i a l e f rort was u n d e r t a k e n by Rockwell t o p r o v i d e 0A253 d a t a for comparison. Test O A 2 5 3 , w h i c h h a s much h i g h e r r e s o l u t i o n i n many a r e a s on t l i c : S h u t t l e , WAS most h e l p f u l i n r e s o l v i n g t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s . The l a r g e changes i n t h e cliarac.:er and 1 e v e . L ~o f p r e s q i i r e olJtained i n O A 2 5 3 , ahead of and behind t h e b i p o d . were i n a y r e c m e n t ~ : . ; t l i u:+i.a from a Langley s m a l l transonic-. t u n n e l . T h e r e a f t e r d a t a from t e s t 011253 were c o u p l e d w i t h I A 1 0 5 A and I A 8 1 d a t a t o p r o v i d e a s i m u l a t i o n s t a n d a r d p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r o n s e t f l o w c o n d i t i o n s a p p r o a c h i n g t h e b i p o d . The s o l i d l i n e s i n f i g u r e 5 are i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e a c t u a l f a i r i n g s u s e d .
:L .

.-

Lven w i t h t h e h i g h e r r e s o l u t i o n of t h e O A 2 5 3 t e s t p r e s s u r e d a t a , many i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s of t h e f l o w f i e l d c o u l d n o t be d e t e r m i n e d . I n a d d i t i o n , d e t a i l e d s u p e r s o n i c d a t a a r c r e q u i r e d ahead o f t h e bipod f o r p a n e l 20C, w h i l e 0 A 2 5 3 t e s t s were c a r r i e d o u t o n l y a t t r a n s o n i c s p e e d s . V a r i a t i o n s of p r e s s u r e i n t h e l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n , s e p a r a t e d - f l o w b o u n d a r i e s , and shock l o c a t i o n s are a l l f e a t u r e s of t h e flow f ' i e l d t h a t e x i s t i n g d a t a did n o t d c f i n e with t h e precision required t o assure an accurate

99

s i m u l a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , b o t h t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c t e s t s of s u b s c a l e b i p o d s were u n d e r t a k e n . R e s u l t s from t h e s e t e s t s l a t e r proved i n d i s p e n s a b l e . I n s u b s e q u e n t p a r a g r a p h s , t h e f e a t u r e s of t h e s u p e r s o n i c p o r t i o n of t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l tests a r e described.
SUPERSONIC TESTS OF SUBSCALE BIPODS

The main s o u r c e o f l o a d s of p a n e l 20C was t h e u n s t e a d y p r e s s u r e under t h e bow shock ahead of t h e S h u t t l e b i p o d . The magnitude o f t h e s e l o a d s varies d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e s h o c k and i s a maximum f o r f r e e - s t r e a m Mach numbers a p p r o a c h i n g 2.5. However, t h e Mach number j u s t ahead of t h e bipod, MONSET, g o v e r n s t h e bow-shock s t r e n g t h , and t h i s i s t h e f l o w c o n d i t i o n t h a t one would l i k e t o s i m u l a t e i n t h e t u n n e l . Because i t w a s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e h i g h e s t Mach number a c h i e v a b l e i n t h e 8-Ft. TPT would n o t b e much i n e x c e s s of 1 . 5 , and t h i s w i t h a s u b s c a l e b i p o d , a l a r g e amount o f a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n had t o b e developed t o formulate an acceptable simulation.
A g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e flow character ahead of t h e b i p o d i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6 . The f r e e stream f l o w i s s t a g n a t e d on t h e o r b i t e r n o s e and t h e n expanded o v e r t h e l o w e r s u r f a c e o f t h e o r b i t e r . T h i s downstream f l o w i s l a b e l l e d " o n s e t flow" i n t h e s k e t c h . A t t h e a s c e n t f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s of i n t e r e s t , n e a r maximuni l o a d s , t h e boundary l a y e r i s t u r b u l e n t . T h i s t u r b u l e n t boundary l a y e r i s s e p a r a t e d ahead o f t h e b i p o d a t t a c h m e n t s t r u c t u r e ( y o k e ) , An o b l i q u e s h o c k i s formed a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of s e p a r a t i o n c r e a t i n g a s e c o n d a r y o r l o c a l f l o w which g o v e r n s t h e s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e and p r e s s u r e rise a c r o s s t h e normal s h o c k s u s t a i n e d ahead o f t h e b i p o d . S i n c e t h e main c o n c e r n s are t h e a c o u s t i c l o a d s a t t h e f o o t of t h i s normal s h o c k , t h e l o c a l f l o w c o n d i t i o n s , t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e normal s h o c k , and t h e p r e s s u r e r i s e a c r o s s i t must b e a c c u r a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d t o c o n d u c t a p r o p e r simulation.

I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e r e a l i s t i c i n s i g h t i n t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e flow ahead of t h e b i p o d , a 0 . 2 2 - s c a l e b i p o d was mounted on a f l a t p l a t e as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 7 and t e s t e d i n t h e Langley U n i t a r y P l a n Wind Tunnel (UPITI') o v e r a r a n g e of Mach numbers from 1.5 t o 2.5. Boundary l a y e r t r i p s were employed t o i n s u r e a t u r b u l e n t boundary l a y e r . Surf a c e p r e s s u r e s (on t h e p l a t e ) were measured t h r o u g h 51 o r i f i c e s t o d e f i n e t h e boundary l a y e r s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t as w e l l as t h e l o c a l fiow c o n d i t i o n s ahead of t h e b i p o d . T h i r t y - t h r e e o f t h e o r i f i c e s were l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e p l a t e ; 9 , a l o n g a r a y emanating from the c e n t e r o f t h e b i p o d a t a 30' a n g l e t o t h e p l a t e c e n t e r ; and t h e r e m a i n i n g 9 , a l o n g a s i m i l a r 60° r a y . J n a d d i t i o n , t h e bipod was s u b s e q u e n t l y mounted a t a s e c o n d l o n g i t u d i n a l l o c a t i o n 3.5 i n c h e s a f t o f t h e p o s i t i o n shown i n f i g u r e 7 . The e f f e c t i v e number o f o r i f i c e s was t h e r e b y i n c r e a s e d t o 102, 66 a l o n g t h e p l a t e c e n t e r l i n e and 36 o t h e r s t o d e f i n e t h e l a t e r a l p r e s s u r e s ahead of t h e b i p o d . S u r f a c e o i l f l o w s were a l s o employed t o s t u d y t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l e x t e n t of s e p a r a t i o n . S c h l i e r e n and shadowgraph p h o t o g r a p h s were employed t o d e f i n e t h e a v e r a g e p o s i t i o n o f t h e bow s h o c k a t e a c h Mach number. The p r e s s u r e and f l o w v i s u a l i z a t i o n d a t a were a n a l y z e d r a t h e r e x t e n s i v e l y t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e f l c r c mechanics and t o e s t a b l i s h c o r r e l a t i o n s wherever p o s s i b l e s o t h a t t h e f l o w c o n d i t i o n s i n f l i g h t c o u l d be p r o p e r l y s i m u l a t e d w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y d u p l i c a t i n g
100

t h e f l i g h t environment. Subsequent d i s c u s s i o n s w i l l cover t h e s u p e r s o n i c wind t u n n e l t e s t s , t h e a n a l y s i s of t h o s e d a t a , and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e s t a t i c and dynamic s i m u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e Combined Loads O r b i t e r T e s t s (CLOT) conducted i n t h e Langley 8-Foot Transonic P r e s s u r e Tunnel (8-Ft. TPT).

FLOW AHEAD OF THE BIPOD AT SUPERSONIC MACH NUMBERS
A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e s u b s c a l e bipod w a s t e s t e d a t two l o n g i t u d i n a l locat i o n s on t h e f l a t p l a t e ; however, t h e forward l o c a t i o n had been o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t and t h e a f t p o s i t i o n w a s included d u r i n g t h e UPWT tests. The forward bipod l o c a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of o r i f i c e s w e r e based on p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s from e x i s t i n g d a t a as p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 5 a s w e l l as p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ahead of v e r t i c a l f i n s w i t h c y l i n d r i c a l l e a d i n g edges ( r e f . 2) p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d i n t h e UPWT. A t y p i c a l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n ahead of a v e r t i c a l c y l i n d e r i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 8. The p r e s s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n extends approximately 3 diameters ahead of t h e c y l i n d e r a t t h i s Mach number ( - 2 . 3 ) w h i l e a set of p r e s s u r e o r i f i c e s c o v e r i n g t h a t same nondimensional d i s t a n c e ahead of t h e bipod does n o t come c l o s e t o measuring t h e p r e s s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n . The d e r i v a t i o n of t h e p r e s s u r e c o r r e l a t i o n curve shown i n t h i s f i g u r e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e t r u e e x t e n t of i n t e r a c t i o n ahead of t h e bipod f o r t h i s Mach number w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e following paragraphs.

A t y p i c a l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n r e s u l t i n g from both l o n g i t u d i n a l l o c a t i o n s of t h e s u b s c a l e bipod on t h e f l a t p l a t e i s presented i n f i g u r e 9. The onset Mach number (2.1) f o r t h i s test corresponds t o t h e f l i g h t Mach number where maximum p r e s s u r e rise a c r o s s t h e normal shock ahead of t h e bipod o c c u r s . The p r e s s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n extends approximately 6 bipod diameters upstream. T h i s i s s l i g h t l y l a r g e r than t h e p r e d i c t e d e x t e n t i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 8 b u t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e c r e a s e i n Mach number from 2 . 3 t o 2.1.
The s c h l i e r e n photograph on t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e f i g u r e corresponds t o t h e s q u a r e symbol p r e s s u r e d a t a o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e bipod mounted a f t and t h e shadowgraph on t h e right s i d e corresponds to t h e c i r c u l a r symbol data o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e b i p o d i n t h e forward p o s i t i o n . The o b l i q u e shock which occurs a t t h e beginning of i n t e r a c t i o n (or s e p a r a t i o n ) as w e l l as t h e normal shock ahead of t h e bipod l e g s a r e c l e a r l y v i s i b l e i n both t y p e s of flow v i s u a l i z a t i o n . Also noted on t h i s f:igure i s t h e r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t ( o r p l a t e a u ) p r e s s u r e r e g i o n which o c c u r s j u s t downstream of t h e i n i t i a l p r e s s u r e rise. This parameter i s t h e b a s i s of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s developed during t h i s s t u d y . The c e n t e r l i n e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ahead of t h e bipod f o r t h e Mach number range (1.5 <MONSET ~ 2 . 5 ) t h e UPWT tests are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 10. The nonof dimensional p r e s s u r e r a t i o pLOCAL/pONSET has been reduced by u n i t y f o r convenience i n subsequent c o r r e l a t i o n s . The i n t e r a c t i o n l e n g t h ahead of t h e bipod h a s been nondimensionalized by t h e h e i g h t of t h e bipod yoke h because t h i s i s t h e key geometric parameter governing t h e e x t e n t of s e p a r a t i o n . It can be s e e n t h a t t h e b a s i c pressure levels can vary by as much as 100 p e r c e n t and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n l e n g t h by 25 p e r c e n t o v e r t h i s Mach number range.

101

Because t h e p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e s are a s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e of s e p a r a t e d flow r e g i o n s , t h i s parameter w a s chosen t o c o r r e l a t e t h e p r e s s u r e s . The p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e s i n t h i s s t u d y a g r e e w e l l w i t h v a l u e s obtained ahead of two-dimensional forward-facing s t e p s as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 1 . Between onset Mach numbers of 0 t o 6 , t h e s e d a t a are 1 reasonably w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e following l i n e a r f u n c t i o n of o n s e t Mach number:

When t h i s p r e s s u r e r a t i o i s reduced by u n i t y , i t becomes an e f f e c t i v e i n v e r s e s c a l i n g f u n c t i o n . The s c a l e d p r e s s u r e data from f i g u r e 10 i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 12 where

The o v e r a l l p r e s s u r e l e v e l s are i n b e t t e r agreement and t h e s c a l e d p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e s are approximately e q u a l t o 1 as they should b e ; however, t h e d i s p a r i t y i n e x t e n t of i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h Mach number becomes even m o r e o b v i o u s when t h e p r e s s u r e l e v e l has been s c a l e d . The e x t e n t of i n t e r a c t i o n along t h e c e n t e r l i n e w a s a l s o c o r r e l a t e d p r i m a r i l y It w a s assumed t h a t t h e d i v i d i n g s t r e a m l i n e of t h e s e p a r a t e d flow ahead of t h e bipod was s t r a i g h t , t h a t t h e flow w a s two-dimensional, and t h a t t h e average p r e s s u r e o v e r t h i s s e p a r a t e d r e g i o n w a s e q u a l t o t h e p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e . Once t h e o n s e t Mach number h a s been chosen t h e p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e r a t i o can be determined from e q u a t i o n ( 1 ) . Oblique shock r e l a t i o n s can t h e n be used t o determine t h e t u r n i n g ( o r wedge) a n g l e 6 r e q u i r e d t o g e n e r a t e t h a t p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e . The following r e l a t i o n w a s taken from r e f e r e n c e 3:
as a f u n c t i o n of p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 13.

2

PPLATEAU

tan 6

=

2

Y

M

~

~
.-

~

~

~

PONSET

(3)

Since t h e d i v i d i n g s t r e a m l i n e r e a t t a c h e s a t t h e t o p of a forward-facing s t e p , an e x t e n t of s e p a r a t i o n LSEp can be c a l c u l a t e d as a simple trigonometry f u n c t i o n f o r a given s t e p h e i g h t h:
L~~~

- tan6

-

h

=
‘SCALE

(4)

This c a l c u l a t e d s e p a r a t i o n l e n g t h was used t o scale t h e nondimensional l e n g t h s of f i g u r c 1 2 and t h e r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 1 4 . The c e n t e r l i n e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s appear t o be w e l l c o r r e l a t e d and t h e r e s u l t i n g p r e s s u r e curve shown i n f i g u r e 15 was t a b u l a t e d and adopted as t h e b a s i c p r e s s u r e curve t o be s c a l e d t o o t h e r t e s t c o n d i t i o n s and bipod s i z e s as r e q u i r e d .

102

a
The p r e s s u r e o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d o f € t h e c e n t e r l i n e were t o o s p a r s e t o a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e t h e l a t e r a l v a r i a t i o n and e x t e n t of t h e p r e s s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n . The l a t e r a l V a r i a t i o n i n e x t e n t of s e p a r a t i o n w i t h Mach number w a s determined from o i l flow photographs such as t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 16. The o u t l i n e of panel 20A and 20C w i t h i t s dashed l i n e s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e forward landing gear doors have been overlayed on t h e o i l flow photographs f o r r e f e r e n c e . The s e p a r a t e d flow f o o t p r i n t s a t each of f o u r Mach numbers were f i t t e d with p a r a b o l a s whose e c c e n t r i c i t i e s were c o r r i l a t e d w i t h onset Mach number and meridian a n g l e 4 as p r e v i o u s l y shown i n f i g u r e 13. The g e n e r a l e q u a t i o n f o r t h e p a r a b o l a s i s

1.205 wher'e 2p

( * ) ;

=

(2P)

(",q - ")
+
21.74
LSEp

(5)

i s a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f onset Mach number given by 2P
-5.24

MONSET

is equal t o t h e c e n t e r l i n e e x t e n t of s e p a r a t i o n and 'SEP t h e bipod yoke t h i c k n e s s , 0.346h, o r

p l u s half of

With e q u a t i o n s (5), ( 6 ) , and ( 7 ) , t h e i n t e r s e c . t i o n ( X , y) of a n y given meridian w i t h t h e p a r a b o l i c f o o t p r i n t can be determined a l g e b r a i c a l l y . The e x t e n t of t h e p r e s s u r e curve p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 15 can then be p r o p e r l y s c a l e d by t h e d i s t a n c e a l o n g t h e meridian between t h e f a c e of t h e bipod and t h e p a r a b o l i c f o o t p r i n t as giver1 by 'SCALE

= J -

-

0.346 s e c

4

For meridian a n g l e s less than o r e q u a l t o 30°, t h e d e c r e a s e i n p r e s s u r e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g meridian a n g l e i s n e g l i g i b l e ; however, t h e primary p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s study w a s t h e c e n t e r l i n e v a l u e . The importance of t h e s e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o b t a i n e d a t s u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers i n t h e UPWT can be i l l u s t r a t e d t o some degree by applying t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s t o produce a p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t h e h i g h e s t Mach number of e x i s t i n g d a t a p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 5 ( d ) . The f r e e stream Mach number i s 1 . 4 and t h e o n s e t Mach number based on t h e p r e s s u r e s from f i g u r e 5 ( d ) i s approximately 1 . 2 . The comparative p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n from t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s developed i n t h i s s t u d y are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 1 7 . The c h a r a c t e r of t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t , both i n magnitude and e x t e n t of p r e s s u r e . The e x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h e UPWT d a t a down t o an o n s e t Mach number of 1.2 are probably more tenuous i n p r e d i c t e d e x t e n t t h a n i n p r e s s u r e l e v e l s ; however, both parameters should be reasonably accurate. I n any event, t h e p r e s s u r e rise a c r o s s t h e normal shock a t t h i s l o c a l Mach number i s very small, and . a t o n s e t Mach numbers above 1 . 5 where t h e f l u c t u a t i n g p r e s s u r e s are s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s are very r e l i a b l e .
103

0

Once the local pressure distribution has been established, the local Mach number can be determined from the following relations which were taken from reference 3. Local Mach numbers greater than unity are determined

is simply the pressure ratio pLocAL/poNsET. When the local where Mach number becomes less than one, it is determined from
~~

tLOcAL

%OCAL

=

&GLOC&
+

[LOCAL

With the local pressures and Mach numbers now defined, the remaining aerodynamic parameters of interest such as local dynamic pressure and pressure rise across the normal shock ahead of the bipod when the local flow is supersonic can be
readily determined f r o m

LOCAL
and

= 2

Y

PLOCAL

MLOCAL

L

Of equal importance with the magnitude of fluctuating normal-shock pressures is the location where they occur, ite., the location of the normal shock. I was t assumed that the shock standoff distance ahead of the bipod would be similar to that ahead of a cylinder mounted normal to the flow. The standoff distance would then be characterized by the diameter of the bipod, D, the local Mach number, and the density ratio across the normal shock. However, the density ratio across the shock is only a function of local Mach number when specific heats are constant.
For this study, an attempt was made to correlate the shock standoff distances measured from enlarged shadowgraphs similar to those previously presented in figure 9 as a function of bipod diameter and onset Mach number in the following manner. It was assumed that the shock standoff distance AXSHOCK, when nondimensionalized by the bipod diameter D, could be adequately represented by simple functions of the density ratio K and the onset Mach number MONSET. For air with y = 1.4, the density ratio is given by

K =

Mm k
+

9

2

M~~~~~

104

K f ( K ) = - sinh-' 1-K

[d-

1-K

K (2-K)

]

(14

as d e v e l o p e d by L i and G e i g e r i n r e f e r e n c e 4 . I t w a s hoped t h a t t h i s r e l a t i o n would b e s u f f i c i e n t t o produce a c o r r e l a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e f o l l o w i n g

*%HOCK

1-f(K)

= Constant

D
When t h e measured s h o c k s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e s were a p p l i e d t o e q u a t i o n (15) i t w a s found t h a t t h e r i g h t - h a n d s i d e w a s n o t a c o n s t a n t , b u t i n s t e a d was a f u n c t i o n o f o n s e t Mach number which r e s u l t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e

3.171

D

(16)

4D

An i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f e q u a t i o n (16) i n p r e d i c t i n g shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e i s g i v e n i n f i g u r e 18. The v e r t i c a l dashed l i n e s r e p r e s e n t t h e I . o c a t i o n s p r e d i c t e d from e q u a t i o n ( 1 6 ) . The l e f t s i d e of t h e f i g u r e shows t h e normal shock ahead o f t h e s u b s c a l e b i p o d used i n t h e IJPhT t e s t s a t t h e o n s e t Mach number where t h e maximum shock p r e s s u r e s d u r i n g STS-I a s c e n t o c c u r . The r i g h t s i d e o f t h e f i g u r e (from r e f . 2 ) shows t h e normal shock ahead of a v e r t i c a l c y l i n d e r which h a s n e a r l y t w i c e t h e d i a m e t e r of t h e b i p o d and was t e s t e d a t a h i g h e r o n s e t Mach number. The a c c u r a c y is c o n s i d e r e d q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e i n b o t h c a s e s . With t h e i n c l u s i o n of e q u a t i o n (16), a l l t h e n e c e s s a r y c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e t h e s t a t i c o r s t e a d y - s t a t e environments n e c e s s a r y t o p r o d u c e a n a c c u r a t e s i m u l a t i o n of f l i g h t i n t h e Langley 8-Foot T r a n s o n i c P r e s s u r e Tunnel.

STATIC SIMULATION

With t h e c o r r e l a t i o n e q u a t i o n s (1) t h r o u g h (16) a v a i l a b l e , t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r any s i z e b i p o d c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d g i v e n t h e o n s e t Mach number and p r e s s u r e . The a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n r e l a t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a t i o n of f l i g h t s h o c k s t r e n g t h s ( 3 . 7 8 p s i a t MONSET = 2 . 1 ) w i t h s u b s c a l e b i p o d s a t lower Mach numbers ( i n t h i s case, h a l f - s c a l e and t h r e e - q u a r t e r - s c a l e b i p o d s a t = 1 Q N s ~ ~. 6 5 and s e v e n - e i g h t h - s c a l e b i p o d a t MONSET = 1.80) i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n f i g u r e 19. Note t h e i n c r e a s e i n t o t a l press u r e r e q u i r e d a t lower Mach numbers t o a c h i e v e t h e d e s i r e d shock s t r e n g t h . O b v i o u s l y , t h e levels of s t a t i c p r e s s u r e are a l s o i n c r e a s e d and f l o w s e p a r a t i o n F i g u r e 20 c a n be used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s e f f e c t more o c c u r s c l o s e r t o t h e bipod. graphically. It shows t h e f l o w - s e p a r a t i o n b o u n d a r i e s f o r a f u l l - s c a l e bipod a t
105

a

t h e free-stream c o n d i t i o n s t h a t provide t h e maximum shock s t r e n g t h compared w i t h t h a t € o r s u b s c a l e bipods a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e wind-tunnel c o n d i t i o n s . The s u b s c a l e bipods are p o s i t i o n e d t o g i v e t h e same bow-shock l o c a t i o n s as t h e f u l l - s c a l e bipod. Another v a l u a b l e p i e c e of d i a g n o s t i c information obtained from t h e UPWI t e s t s w a s t h e measurement of t h e detachment d i s t a n c e of t h e bow shock on t h e bipod as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number. The v a r i a t i o n of shock-detachment d i s t a n c e (measured a t t h e t o p of t h e bipod f l a n g e l o c a t e d near t h e bottom of t h e bipod) w i t h Mach number i s shown i n f i g u r e 21. These d a t a were u s e f u l f o r two very d i s t i n c t purposes: (1) they provided t h e information needed t o move a s u b s c a l e bipod s o t h a t i t s bow shock could be l o c a t e d i n t h e same p l a c e ( a s a f u n c t i o n of time) as t h a t f o r t h e f u l l - s c a l e bipod and ( 2 ) they provided a n o t h e r method of e s t i m a t i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e free-stream c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e 8 - F t . TPT where t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t Nach number g r a d i e n t s ahead of t h e p a n e l . Given t h a t t h e important t i l e - l o a d c o n t r i b u t o r s a r e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s ( e s p e c i a l l y those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s h o c k s ) , time-varying p r e s s u r e levels, and unsteady p r e s s u r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h flow s e p a r a t i o n and shock movement, i t is clear from f i g u r e s 19 and 20 t h a t t h e use of a h a l f - s c a l e bipod s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced t h e area over which r e a l i s t i c t i l e l o a d s can be simulated. It should a l s o b e pointed o u t t h a t when t h e t o t a l p r e s s u r e of t h e o n s e t flow i s r a i s e d t o p r o v i d e t h e s a m e bow-shock s t r e n g t h for a half-scale b i p o d a t a n o n s e t Mach number of 1 . 6 5
a s t h a t o b t a i n e d in f l i g h t f o r an onset Mach number o f 2 . 1 , then t h e o b l i q u e shock

from t h e l e a d i n g edge of t h e separated-flow r e g i o n s ( s e e f i g . 6 ) i s much s t r o n g e r t h a n t h a t encountered i n f l i g h t a t t h e same c o n d i t i o n s .

T IME-VARY ING ENVIRONMENTS

The time-varying f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s of f i g u r e 4 can be used w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o b t a i n e d i n t h e wind-tunnel tests of IA105A and B , I A 8 1 and 0A253, and on t h e s u b s c a l e bipods a t t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c speeds t o d e f i n e t h e p r e s s u r e d f s t r i b u t i o n s around t h e bipod a t s p e c i f i c p o i n t s i n t i m e . These d a t a can a l s o be used t o provide a continuous t i m e h i s t o r y of t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , dynamic p r e s s u r e , and Mach number a t a s p e c i f i c p o i n t on t h e s u r f a c e . I f one i s reasonably s u r e t h a t , on t h e b a s i c of f a v o r a b l e comparisons of p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s obtained i n complete model tests w i t h t h o s e o b t a i n e d i n t h e wind t u n n e l where t h e bipod w a s t h e dominant f e a t u r e , t h e l a t t e r provides a c c u r a t e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , t h e n t i m e h i s t o r i e s a t a s i n g l e p o i n t can be used t o e f f e c t t h e s i m u l a t i o n of p r e s s u r e s f o r a much l a r g e r area. T h i s i s t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d f o l l o w i n g the completion of t h e s u b s c a l e bipod t e s t s ; consequently, most of t h e t i m e simulati o n s were done on t h e b a s i s of t h o s e measured a t a s i n g l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p o i n t . The p o i n t chosen f o r p a n e l 20C w a s 1 2 i n c h e s ahead of t h e bipod, where both unsteadyand steady-pressure d a t a w e r e a v a i l a b l e from t h e c a l i b r a t i o n p a n e l s . V a r i a t i o n s o f t h e flow parameters w i t h time ahead of t h e f u l l - s c a l e bipod are p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e s 22 t o 25. Free-stream, o n s e t , and p o i n t v a l u e s f o r a p o i n t 24 inches ahead of t h e bipod i n t h e r e g i o n of t h e p r e s s u r e p l a t e a u are p r e s e n t e d . The Mach number a t t h i s p o i n t i n c r e a s e s c o n t i n u o u s l y w i t h t i m e b u t a t a lower r a t e t h a n i n t h e f r e e stream. Dynamic p r e s s u r e on t h e o t h e r hand has two maxima, one a t 45 seconds and another a t 8 1 seconds. Note t h a t t h e second maximum i s much l a r g e r than t h e f i r s t and occurs a t a free-stream Mach number near 2.0.

106

F i g u r e 24 i s p r e s e n t e d t o show t h e v a r i a t i o n w i t h t i m e of t h e p r e s s u r e jump a c r o s s t h e bow s h o c k ahead of t h e b i p o d as w e l l as t h e p r e s s u r e jump a c r o s s a n o r i n a l shock w i t h & as t h e o n s e t Mach number. The q u a n t i t y APSHOCK peaks a t a va1c.e of 3.82 p s i a t 90 seconds i n t o t h e f l i g h t , where t h e o n s e t Mach number i s Some a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e s t r e n g t h of 2 . 1 and t h e f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number i s 2.5. t h e bow s h o c k c a n be o b t a i n e d from t h e f a c t t h a t i n t h e t r a n s o n i c speed r a n g e no shocks s t r o n g e r t h a n 2.2 p s i are e x p e c t e d . Shock-detachment d i s t a n c e as a f u n c t i o n of time i s g i v e n i n f i g u r e 25. The s h o c k f i r s t starts t o form around 70 seconds and mcves s t e a d i l y c l o s e r t o t h e bipod. A t t h e t i m e when t h e p r e s s u r e r i s e a c r o s s t h e sf.ock i s a t t h e maximum, t h e detachment d i s t a n c e i s j u s t o v e r 3 i n c h e s .

SPECIAL PROBLEMS I N PANEL 20C SIMULATION
Eecause t h e free-stream Mach numbers r e q u i r e d t o g e n e r a t e t h e shock s t r e n g t h s ( f i g . 2 4 ) , . c o u l d n o t b e a c h i e v e d w i t h a f u l l - s c a l e bipod i n t h e 8 - F t . TPT, a g r e a t ,amount of d i f f i c u l t y was e n c o u n t e r e d i n e f f e c t i n g an a c c u r a t e s i m u l a t i o n of t h e Elow f i e l d o v e r p a n e l 20C. Even w i t h a s u b s c a l e bipod ( o r no b i p o d ) , t h e r e was n e v e r a n e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e 8-Ft. TPT c o u l d b e m o d i f i e d t o a c h i e v e an o n s e t Mach number o f 2.1. The hope was t h a t t h e r i g h t combination o f b i p o d s i z e and s u p e r s o n i c n o z z l e c o u l d b e found t o a c h i e v e a n o n s e t Mach number g r e a t e r t h a n 1 . 6 . With t h i s Fach number, t h e t o t a l p r e s s u r e i n t h e t u n n e l c o u l d b e r a i s e d r e l a t i v e t o t h a t i n f l i g h t s o t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d shock s t r e n g t h c o u l d be o b t a i n e d . The n o z z l e r e q u i r e d t o accelerate t h e f l o w t o s u p e r s o n i c s p e e d s w a s p r o v i d e d by b u i l d i n g up :he s i d e s and c e i l i n g o f t h e t u n n e l w i t h f i b e r g l a s s - c o a t e d , c o n t o u r e d b l o c k s i n the t h r o a t r e g i o n and z - b a r - r e i n f o r c e d aluminum s h e e t s u p s t r e a m and downstream. This was t o p r o v i d e as g r a d u a l a c o n t r a c t i o n and e x p a n s i o n a s p o s s i b l e . The s i d e s of t h e n o z z l e d i f f u s e r e x t e n d e d downstream t o a b o u t t h e m i d d l e of p a n e l 20C, w h i l e the t o p - s i d e f a i r i n g t e r m i n a t e d a b o u t a f o o t beyond t h e bipod. I n the tunnelempty c o n f i g u r a t i o n ( w i t h t h e b i p o d removed), t h e s u p e r s o n i c n o z z l e y i e l d e d a n o n s e t Mach number of c l o s e t o 1.8. With t w o - t h i r d - s c a l e and h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d s ( w i t h t r u n c a t e d l e g s ) , t h e maximum Mach numbers a c h i e v a b l e were a p p r o x i m a t e l y L.35 and 1 . 6 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Clearly, the half-scale bipod had t o be used to s i m u l a t e t h e maximum shock jumps and a s s o c i a t e d u n s t e a d y p r e s s u r e s e n c o u n t e r e d i n [light. K i t h t h e a i d of t h e s u p e r s o n i c UPlJT d a t a p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , t i m e h i s t o r i e s o f o n s e t Mach number and l o c a l v a l u e s o f s t a t i c and dynamic p r e s s u r e c o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d that would y i e l d t h e r e q u i r e d s h o c k - p r e s s u r e jumps. S i n c e a h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d w a s employed i n t h e t e s t s , a p o i n t c l o s e r t o t h e bipod t h a n t h e 2 4 i n c h e s chosen f o r t h e f u l l - s c a l e bipod ( f i g s . 1 9 , 2 2 , and 23) had t o b e used t o m o n i t o r A p o i n t 1 2 i n c h e s ahead of t h e bipod was t h e time v a r i a t i o n of p , , M I , and q,. s e l e c t e d . Onset Mach number v e r s u s t i m e i s p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 26 f o r t h e 8-Ft. TPT s i m u l a t i o n and f o r t h e S h u t t l e i n f l i g h t , The v a r i a t i o n of dynamic p r e s s u r e w i t h t i m e a t t h e 12-inch p o i n t f o r t h e 8-Ft. TPT s i m u l a t i o n and t h e S h u t t l e STS-1 f l i g h t i s g i v e n i n f i g u r e 27. The Mach number s h o r t f a l l (1.65 v e r s u s 2.1) a t t h e p o i n t of maximum shock s t r e n g t h r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e wind t u n n e l b e r u n a t a t o t a l p r e s s u r e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 0 atm i n s t e a d of t h e f l i g h t value which i s s l i g h t l y above 0.6 a t m . The a d v e r s e e f f e c t of r u n n i n g a t t h i s h i g h e r t o t a l p r e s s u r e i s t h a t t h e p o i n t v a l u e s of dynamic p r e s s u r e ( f i g . 27) a r e much h i g h e r t h a n t h e f l i g h t levels T h i s phenomenon s t i m u l a t e d a q u i c k l o o k a t what and p e r s i s t f o r a l o n g e r t i m e .
107

happens when t h e dynamic p r e s s u r e i s matched ( a t t h e 12-inch p o i n t ) i n s t e a d o f ApSHOCK. T h e r e s u l t i s shown i n f i g u r e 28 and i n d i c a t e s t h a t a f a r weaker shock

i s g e n e r a t e d t h a n t h a t d e s i r e d and f o r a much s h o r t e r t i n e .
It c a n b e e x p e c t e d , w i t h t h e u s e o f a h a l f - s c a l e bipod and a maximum t u n n e l Xach number o f 1.65, t h a t t h e movement of t h e bow shock w i l l be less t h a n t h a t f o r t h e f u l l - s c a l e b i p o d a t f l i g h t Mach numbers. F u r t h e r m o r e , when t h e Mach number i n t h e t u n n e l d e c r e a s e s f o r times g r e a t e r t h a n 90 s e c o n d s ( i n o r d e r t o c o n t i n u e t o match t h e STS-1 s h o c k s t r e n g t h ) , t h e n t h e bow s h o c k moves away from t h e b i p o d i n s t e a d oE moving c l o s e r as i t d o e s i n f l i g h t . The above d e f i c i e n c i e s a r e a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r i n f i g u r e 2 9 , which shows t h e STS-1 shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e s and t h o s e i n c u r r e d f o r a f i x e d h a l f - s c a l e bipod. E a r l y and l a t e i n t h e ~ P S H O C R p u l s e , t h e h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d s h o c k p o s i t i o n i s i n e r r o r by a b o u t 3 i n c h e s w i t h a " z e r o e r r o r " a t t h e c r o s s o v e r p o i n t a t 9 2 s e c o n d s . The d e s i r a b i l i t y of b e i n g a b l e t o move t h e bipod t o p o s i t i o n t h e s h o c k i n t h e " r i g h t " l o c a t i o n i s a p p a r e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e b i p o d was mounted on a h y d r a u l i c ram w i t h a s t o k e o f 6 i n c h e s . The p o s i t i o n of he ram wab a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d and c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h t h e d i f f u s e r - f l a p movement.

TEST SETUP I N 8 - F t .

TPT

The t i m e - v a r y i n g f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s a r e p r o v i d e d by c o n t r o l l i n g t h e d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e of t h e d i f f u s e r f l a p s i n a p r e s c r i b e d way. When t h e t u n n e l i s s t a r t e d , p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t of a s i m u i a t i o n , t h e f l a p s a r e p o s i t i o n e d a t t h d r f l i l l i n p o s i t i o n , which i s a b o u t 3 3 O f r o m t h e w a l l . T h i s f l a p p o s i t i o n y i e l d s a t e q t s e c t i o n Mach number o f a b o u t 0 . 6 . Dynamic p r e s s u r e and Mach number a r e increaspd by moving t h e f l a p toward t h e t u n n e l wall. Maximum c o n d i t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y a c h i r v p d when t h e f l a p i s w i t h i n 5 O o r 6' of t h e w a l l ; f u r t h e r d e c r e a s e s a r e i n e f f e c t i v e . The maximum a n g u l a r r a t e f o r moving t h e f l a p w a s a b o u t l.j0 per s e c o n d . The f a l s e f l o o r w a s o r i g i n a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d much l i k e an a i r f o i l w i t h a I l a t b o t t o m and was mounted on s t r e a m l i n e d s u p p o r t s a b o u t 2 i n c h e s h i g h . T h i s ptlriiiitted t h e o n s e t boundary l a y e r t o p a s s b e n e a t h t h e f l o o r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e bounclarv l a y e r j u s t ahead of t h e p a n e l s was k e p t t h i n - a b o u t t h e same t h i c k n e s s a s that c?ii t h e S h u t t l e . A l s o , i t vas i n i t i a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e d i f f u s e r would o p e r a t e more e f f i c i e n t l y w i t h t h e b y p a s s and t h a t t h e d i f f u s e r f l a p would b e more e f f e c t i v e i r c o n t r o l l i n g t h e f l o w as w e l l . It was found t h r o u g h t r i a l and e r r o r a f t e r t h e f l o o r w a s i n s t a l l e d t h a t t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e t u n n e l w a s , i n f a c t , improved w i t h t h e b y p a s s c l o s e d , F u r t h e r improvement i n t u n n e l performance was a c h i e v e d by t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of v o r t e x g e n e r a t o r s on t h e f a l s e f l o o r s e v e r a l f e e t downstream of t h e p a n e l t r a i l i n g edge. Boundary-layer t h i c l t n e s s c s were measured on t h e f a l s e f l o o r w i t h t h e b y p a s s c l o s e d f o r p a n e l 20C i n s t a l l a t i o n . T h e measurement was t a k e n 4 i n c h e s from t h e c e n t e r l i n e and 1 f o o t downstream of t h e l e a d i n g edge of t h e p a n e l . The b o u n d a r y - l a y e r t h i c k n e s s ranged from 0.5 t o 0.7 i n c h e s . These v a l u e s a r c i n good agreement w i t h t h o s e p r e d i c t e d f o r t h e S h u t t l e undcr s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s . F i g u r e 30 i s a p h o t o g r a p h of t h e t e s t p a n e l i n s t a l l e d i n t h e f a l s e f l o o r . T h i s p h o t o g r a p h o f p a n e l 20C w a s t a k e n l o o k i n g downstream. F a i n t l y v i s i b l e i n t h e hackground are t h e d i f f u s e r f l a p s a t t h e downstream edge of t h e f a l s e f l o o r . The h o u s i n g a f t of t h e b i p o d i s f o r t h e h y d r a u l i c ram used t o t r a n s l a t e t h e b i p o d .

108

FEATURES OF CALIBRATION AND TEST PANELS

The g e n e r a l a r r a n g e n e n t f o r p a n e l 20C i s shown i n f i g u r e 31. P a n e l 20C i s coversad w i t h b o t h s i l i c a t i l e s and p o l y u r e t h a n e foam. Only t h r e e rows of r e a l t i l e s w e r e i n s t a l l e d on p a n e l 20C, and t h e s e are c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e heavy d a r k l i n e i n t h e f i g u r e . The f i r s t row of t i l e s on t h e d o o r s and t h o s e a d j a c e n t t o t h e c m t e r edge of t h e d o o r are comprised of 22-PCF s i l i c a t i l e s ; t h o s e o u t s i d e t h e s e r e g i o n s on t h e second and t h i r d rows are 9-PCF d e n s i f i e d t i l e s . Two of t h e real t i l e s c o n t a i n DFI and are s o l a b e l e d . : ? a n e l 20C h a s two i n s t r u m e n t e d t i l e s ; one i s i n t h e f i r s t row of t i l e s on t h e d o o r a n d t o t h e r i g h t of t h e b i p o d , and t h e second i s t o t h e l e f t of t h e c e n t e r l i n e i n t h e s e c o n d row of t i l e s on t h e d o o r . Part of t h e s p e c i a l i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n w a s t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of m i n i Coe s e n s o r s ( r e f . 5 ) d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h r e e rows on t h e bottom o f t h e t i l e . These s e n s o r s c o n s i s t of a s t r a i n gage bonded t o a diaphragm, which i n t y r n i s bonded t o t h e bottom s i d e of t h e a d h e s i v e which h o l d s t h e s t r a i n i s o l a t i o n pad t o t h e aluminum s u r f a c e . Once i n s t a l l e d , t h e f a c e of t h e diaphragm i s f l u s h w i t h t h e aluminum s u r f a c e , Normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g and r o l l i n g moments which are a p p l i e d t o t h e t i l e can b e d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h a n a p p r o p r i a t e c a l i b r a t i o n of t h e s e n s o r o u t p u t s ( r e f . 6 ) .

SIFIULATI O N METHODOLOGY
P r i o r t o s t a r t i n g t h e simulation process, i t i s necessary t o d e f i n e t h e t i m e v a r y i n g environment t o be s i m u l a t e d . For p a n e l 20C, t h e p r i m a r y p a r a m e t e r s are t h e p r e s s u r e r i s e a c r o s s t h e bow shock ApSHOCK and t h e shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e AXSHO(;K, ahead o f t h e bipod. I n f l i g h t , t h e shock p r e s s u r e jump becomes d i s c e r n i b l e a t a f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number o f 1 . 5 (-70 seconds i n t o a s c e n t ) , i n c r e a s e s s t e a d i l y u n t i l i t r e a c h e s a maximum a t a f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number of 2 . 5 (-90 s e c o n d s ) , and t h e n d e c r e a s e s s t e a d i l y u n t i l i t becomes n e g l i g i b l e a t a f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number of 4.0 (-120 s e c o n d s ) a s t h e vehicle c o n t i n u e s t o accelerate t o o r b i t a l s p e e d s . T h e s h o c k s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e d u r i n g t h i s s a m e i n t e r v a l (between 70 and 1 2 0 s e c o n d s of ascent:) d e c r e a s e s c o n t i n u a l l y b e g i n n i n g w i t h a v a l u e of a b o u t 10 i n c h e s a t a frees t r e a n Mach number o f 1 . 5 . The Mach number c a p a b i l i t y o f a t r a n s o n i c wind t u n n e l i s l i m i t e d t o low s u p e r s o n i c s p e e d s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e maximum levels of p r e s s u r e jump a c r o s s t h e bow s h o c k must b e a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t u n n e l o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e r a t h e r t h a n Mach number. 0 p e r a t : i n g p r e s s u r e , on t h e o t h e r hand, c a n n o t n o r m a l l y b e v a r i e d r a p i d l y enough t o r e f l e c t t h e changes i n s h o c k p r e s s u r e s d u r i n g f l i g h t and must b e c o n t r o l l e d by some o t h e r means which i n t h i s case w a s t h e l i m i t e d r a n g e of s u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers a v a i l a b l e i n t h e t u n n e l . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e s are i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o Mach number s o t h a t a s t h e Mach number i s c y c l e d t o p u l s e s i m i l a r t o f l i g h t , t h e bow s h o c k would move toward t h e produce a "SHOCK bipod as t h e Mach number i n c r e a s e d and away from i t as Mach number d e c r e a s e d . T h e r e f o r e , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o d e v i s e a means of i n d e p e n d e n t l y t r a n s l a t i n g t h e b i p o d t o h o l d t h e bow s h o c k i n t h e c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n .

109

PANEL 20C SIMULATION

P r i o r t o s t a r t i n g t h e simulation process, i t i s necessary t o define t h e t i m e v a r y i n g environment t o be s i m u l a t e d . The procedure f o r doing t h i s i s d i s c u s s e d i n a preceding s e c t i o n , where i t was shown t h a t by u s i n g s t a t i c d a t a f o r v a r i o u s wind-tunnel tests, t h e t i m e v a r i a t i o n s of dynamic p r e s s u r e and Mach number a t any p o i n t on t h e panel could b e determined. For p a n e l ZOC, a p o i n t 1 2 inches ahead of t h e bipod w a s chosen as t h e " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " p o i n t . R e s u l t s from t h i s process are p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e s 22 through 25 and a r e r e p e a t e d i n t h e upper left-hand c o r n e r of f i g u r e 32. I t should be noted t h a t when t h e f l i g h t flow v a r i a b l e s are matched a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p o i n t , they a r e a l s o i n good agreement i n t h e surrounding

area.
The problem now i s t o determine t h e d i f f u s e r f l a p - a n g l e time h i s t o r i e s t h a t w i l l g i v e a good approximation of t h e s e t i m e v a r i a t i o n s . To accomplish t h i s , a series of r u n s are made a t d i s c r e t e f l a p - a n g l e s e t t i n g s t o c o n s t r u c t curves such as t h o s e shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n t h e upper right-hand c o r n e r of f i g u r e 32. Each AXSHOCK, and ApSHOCK can be r e l a t e d t o a f l a p a n g l e and t o t i m e . value of MONSET, Consequently, t h e f l a p - a n g l e t i m e h i s t o r y needed t o y i e l d t h e c o r r e c t shock p r e s s u r e t i m e h i s t o r y as w e l l as t h e b i p o d t r a n s l a t i o n s c h e d u l e t o m a i n t a i n c o r r e c t shock l o c a t i o n s (upper l e f t - h a n d c o r n e r ) can now be c o n s t r u c t e d . The s k e t c h i n t h e lower right-hand c o r n e r of f i g u r e 32 d e p i c t s t h i s r e s u l t . A dynamic run i s t h e n made w i t h t h e c a l c u l a t e d f l a p and bipod t r a n s l a t i o n t i m e h i s t o r i e s and t h e r e s u l t i n g shock induced p r e s s u r e s and bipod shock s t a n d o f f (and Mach number) time h i s t o r i e s are compared w i t h t h a t d e s i r e d . I f t h e s i m u l a t i o n is not s a t i s f a c t o r y , e i t h e r t h e f l a p - a n g l e o r bipod t r a n s l a t i o n t i m e h i s t o r y i s a d j u s t e d , t a k i n g i n t o considera t i o n any new i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e p r o c e s s i s r e p e a t e d . I f t h e r a t e of change of t h e shock p r e s s u r e jumps r e q u i r e a l a r g e r r a t e of change of t h e f l a p a n g l e t h a n t h e maximum a v a i l a b l e , 1.5' p e r second, t h e n t h e maximum r a t e i s used u n t i l t h e f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s come back i n t o agreement. Adjustments i n t h e l e v e l of o n s e t p r e s s u r e can be made by changing t h e s t a g n a t i o n - p r e s s u r e l e v e l a t which t h e t e s t i s run. P r i o r t o making s i m u l a t i o n r u n s , a s e r i e s of t e s t s were conducted t o determine t h e t i m e l a g s i n t h e t u n n e l c i r c u i t , i . e . , t h e t i m e i t t a k e s a f l a p - a n g l e change t o be f e l t i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n . Sawtooth time v a r i a t i o n s of t h e f l a p a n g l e were used w i t h s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t amplitudes of t h e sawteeth. The l a g s determined using t h e s e d a t a were f a c t o r e d i n t o t h e i n i t i a l guess o r f i r s t i t e r a t i o n of t h e f l a p - a n g l e time history. Shock-detachment d i s t a n c e s were a l s o measured i n t h e 8-Ft. TPT p r e c a l i b r a t i o n ( p r e c a l ) tests and compared w i t h t h o s e measured on 0.22-scale bipods i n t h e s u b s c a l e t u n n e l experiment t o determine an e f f e c t i v e onset Mach number. I n a d d i t i o n , measured p l a t e a u and o n s e t p r e s s u r e s were used i n c o r r e l a t i o n e q u a t i o n (1) t o c a l c u l a t e onset Mach number as a check on t h e v a l u e s determined from shock-detachmentd i s t a n c e measurements. F i g u r e s 33(a) and 33(b) a r e shadowgraph and s c h l i e r e n photographs f o r a Mach number of approximately 1 . 6 taken i n t h e UPIJT and t h e 8-Ft. TPT, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A c o r n e r f i l l e t obscures t h e flow a t t h e bottom of t h e bipod i n t h e 8-Ft. TPT s c h l i e r e n . A s p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d , t h e shock-detachment d i s t a n c e s i n t h e 8-Ft. TPT s c h l i e r e n are about 3 i n c h e s , which correspond t o a

110

Mach number of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 6 f o r a h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d . The maximum Mach number a t t a i n e d i n t h e 20C s i m u l a t i o n w a s 1 . 6 6 . T h i s was based on p l a t e a u p r e s s u r e s and was r o u g h l y confirmed by s c h l i e r e n p h o t o g r a p h s . Three i t e r a t i o n s o f t h e f l a p - a n g l e t i m e h i s t o r y were n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y ApSHOCK s i m u l a t i o n . (See f i g . 3 4 ) . The f i r s t i t e r a t i o n shown i n f i g u r e 34 y i e l d e d a APSHOCK p u l s e t h a t w a s much t o o broad w i t h a maximum APSHOCK of 3.63. The s e c o n d i t e r a t i o n gave r i s e t o t h e APSHOCK pulse t h a t w a s only s l i g h t l y t o o broad b u t d i d n o t r e a c h t h e d e s i r e d APSHOCK of 3 . 7 8 . The b r o a d n e s s of ApsEoCK p u l s e s w a s a t t r i b u t e d , i n p a r t , t o t h e inadequacy of t h e d i f f u s e r - f l a p d r i v e motors t o move t h e f l a p b a c k o u t i n t o t h e high-dynamic-pressure f l o w a t t h e r e q u i r e d r a t e . The t h i r d i t e r a t i o n i n f i g u r e 34 w a s f o r m u l a t e d w i t h t h e hope t h a t by b r i n g i n g t h e f l a p back c l o s e r t o t h e w a l l (between 85 and 90 s e c o n d s ) and i n t o t h e low-energy boundary l a y e r , it would move away w i t h more momentum a n d , conseq u e n t l y , maintain t h e d e s i r e d rate of f l a p d e f l e c t i o n through t h e higher f l a p a n g l e s . The d e s i r e d w i d t h o r b r o a d n e s s o f t h e p u l s e was r o u g h l y m a i n t a i n e d , b u t t h e maximum ApSHOCK a c h i e v e d w a s h i g h e r t h a n r e q u i r e d . N o f u r t h e r improvements w e r e a t t e m p t e d b e c a u s e o f s c h e d u l e commitments.

. A s n o t e d i n t h e key o f f i g u r e 35, t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d i n t h e t u n n e l s i m u l a t i o n s w e r e t r a n s l a t e d 3.5 s e c o n d s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e b e s t f i t t o t h e APSHOCK pulse.
It w a s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o modify t h e f l a p t i m e h i s t o r y t o a d j u s t f o r t h i s l a g , s i n c e t h e p r i m a r y c o n c e r n w a s t o have a r e a l i s t i c APSHOCK p u l s e d u r i n g each l o a d c y c l e . It s h o u l d a l s o b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e ApSHOCK v a l u e s p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 35 w e r e d e r i v e d u s i n g a n o n s e t Mach number based on t h e a v e r a g e shock-detachment d i s t a n c e s measured from s c h l i e r e n p h o t o g r a p h s f o r s i x of t h e e a r l y l o a d c y c l e s . A p l o t of t h i s a v e r a g e c u r v e i s g i v e n i n f i g u r e 36 and c o n f i r m s t h a t a maximum Mach number of approximately 1.66 w a s obtained.

Concern f o r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e bow s h o c k on t h e p a n e l a h e a d of t h e h a l f - s c a l e bipod .vas n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y . A h y d r a u l i c ram was p r o v i d e d t o t r a n s l a t e t h e h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d i n o r d e r t o have i t s s h o c k l o c a t i o n match t h a t of a f u l l - s c a l e b i p o d f o r as
long a s possible.

The most complete match would have required the half-scale bipod

t o be moved f o r w a r d of i t s normal position early i n the A P ~ H O C K pulse; however, t h e u m t e a d y - p r e s s u r e levels j u s t ahead of t h e b i p o d were found t o b e e x t r e m e l y h i g h (-172 dB), e v e n though t h e y dropped off r a p i d l y . T h e r e f o r e , i t w a s d e c i d e d n o t t o
move t ; a e b i p o d ahead of i t s normal p o s i t i o n and p u t a n u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y h i g h l o a d on t h o s e t i l e s i m m e d i a t e l y ahead of t h e b i p o d . Once t h e maximum Mach number w a s r e a c h e d and t h e bow s h o c k r e a c h e d i t s most r e a r w a r d p o s i t i o n , w i t h t h e b i p o d f i x e d , t h e b i p o d w a s t r a n s l a t e d r e a r w a r d t o keep t h e s h o c k moving toward t h e rear, similar t o f l i g h t , f o r as l o n g as p o s s i b l e . The b i p o d was t r a n s l a t e d 2 i n c h e s ( 4 i n c h e s o u t of t h e 6 i n c h e s a v a i l a b l e w a s o r i g i n a l l y a l l o t t e d t o a p l a n n e d forward t r a n s l a t i o n ) o v e r a p e r i o d of a b o u t 1 6 s e c o n d s and remained t h e r e f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e l o a d c y c l e ( f i g . 37). The v a r i a t i o n s of bow-shock l o c a t i o n w i t h t i m e f o r s i x l o a d c y c l e s , r e l a t i v e t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e face of t h e f i x e d f u l l - s c a l e b i p o d , are bounded by t h e shaded band in f i g u r e 38. The d a t a from s e v e n o f t h e e a r l i e r runs have been p l o t t e d a t pulse i n 3.5 s e c o n d s l a t e r , which i s t h e same t r a n s l a t i o n as t h a t f o r t h e 'PSHOCK
111

figure 35.

A t t i m e s n e a r 90 s e c o n d s , where

ApSHOCK i s a maximum, t h e STS-1 c u r v e

and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l band c r o s s . l i m i t e d t r a n s l a t i o n employed.

O v e r a l l , t h e agreement i s good c o n s i d e r i n g t h e

P a n e l 20C w a s t e s t e d €or 25 m i s s i o n s (100 c y c l e s ) u s i n g t h e s e t u p d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y . A t t h e s t a r t o f t h e 2 6 t h m i s s i o n , one of t h e s u p p o r t s of t h e t o p - w a l l n o z z l e f a i r i n g gave way. A number of a t t e m p t s were made t o r e s o r e t h e w a l l t o i t s o r i g i n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h o u t t e a r i n g i t down, b u t t h e y were n o t s u c c e s s f u l . F i n a l l y , a new and more s u b s t a n t i a l t o p w a l l was i n s t a l l e d ; a number of u n s u c c e s s f u l a d j u s t m e n t s were made i n s t r i v i n g t o a c h i e v e t h e performance of t h e o r i g i n a l w a l l . I n a l l , 1 4 m i s s i o n s (56 c y c l e s ) were r u n a t maximum o n s e t Mach numbers from 1 . 5 t o 1.55 a s v a r i o u s a d j u s t m e n t s were made t o t h e t o p w a l l . A l l t h e t e s t s of p a n e l 20C were c a r r i e d o u t a t a t u n n e l s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e of 1 . 0 atm.

UNSTEADY-PRES SURE ENVIRONMENTS

The severe bow-shock-induced u n s t e a d y p r e s s u r e s on p a n e l 20C a r e p e c u l i a r t o c o n f c g u r a t i o n s w i t h a t t a c h m e n t s t r u c t u r e s n e a r l y normal t o t h e flow. These p r e s s u r e s are n o t a s w e l l u n d e r s t o o d . O v e r a l l f l u c t u a t i n g p r e s s u r e l e v e l (OFPL) d a t a o b t a i n e d i n a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n by Hanly (ref. 7 ) on a 0.035-scale m o d e l of t h e S h u t t l e ascent v e h i c l e d e n o t e d (IS-2) p r o v i d e d t h e f i r s t q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s f o r t h e b i p o d a r e a . I n d e e d , t h e s e d a t a p r o v i d e d much of t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e p a n e l 20C t e s t . Sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l s e n c o u n t e r e d i n f r o n t o f t h e b i p o d on p a n e l 20C are p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 39. Also shown are d a t a p o i n t s from t h e IS-2 t e s t s and t h e STS-1 f l i g h t . P a n e l 20C and t h e IS-2 d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e s of u n s t e a d y p r e s s u r e are immediately ahead o f t h e b i p o d and f a l l o f f r a p i d l y w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from t h e b i p o d f a c e . Ahead of t h e f l o w - s e p a r a t i o n l i n e , which is r o u g h l y 2 4 i n c h e s ahead of t h e b i p o d f a c e f o r a h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d , s o u n d - p r e s s u r e l e v e l s are n e g l i g i b l e . The p o i n t s t a k e n from t h e IS-2 t e s t s ( c o m p l e t e model t e s t s ) show a lower OFPL away from t h e b i p o d , which p r o b a b l y i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n l o c a l dynamic and s t a t i c p r e s s u r e ( f i g . 1 9 ) between t h e CLOT t e s t and t h e f u l l - s c a l e b i p o d i n f l i g h t . Also, t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e o b l i q u e s h o c k w i t h t h e s e p a r a t e d - f l o w wedge ( f i g . . 6 ) g i v e s r i s e t o h i g h s o u n d - p r e s s u r e levels. S i n c e t h e o b l i q u e s h o c k i n t h e CLOT t e s t s i s much s t r o n g e r t h a n t h a t f o r STS-1 b e c a u s e of t h e h i g h e r s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e l e v e l s , t h e s o u n d - p r e s s u r e l e v e l s n e a r t h e s e p a r a t i o n l i n e t e n d t o be h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e f o r STS-1 i n t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n . As n o t e d i n p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s ( f i g . 20), t h e s e p a r a t i o n zone and t h e a s s o c i a t e d o b l i q u e s h o c k f o r a f u l l - s c a l e b i p o d would b e much f u r t h e r forward on t h e p a n e l t h a n t h a t f o r t h e h a l f - s c a l e b i p o d . Only one d a t a p o i n t i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s r e g i o n from STS-1, and i t i s a b o u t 13 i n c h e s ahead of t h e b i p o d f a c e . It i s a b o u t 2 dB l o w e r t h a n t h e p r e c a l p a n e l r e s u l t s . The t e s t p a n e l f o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n 20C had a s u r f a c e K u l i t e gage p l a c e d a b o u t 1 i n c h ahead of t h e bipod and a f r a c t i o n of a n i n c h o f f t h e c e n t e r l i n e . Maximum rms p r e s s u r e levels from a number of r u n s r a n g e from 170 t o 1 7 3 dB, which i s i n q u a l i t a t i v e agreement w i t h t h e p r e c a l p a n e l r e s u l t s . The IS-2 p o i n t p l o t t e d a t x = 3 i n c h e s may b e i n b e t t e r agreement w i t h t h e CLOT r e s u l t s t h a n i s r e a d i l y apparent i f t h e averaging e f f e c t t h a t t h e gage h a s i n a high g r a d ie n t flow i s c o n s i d e r e d . The d i a m e t e r of t h e K u l i t e g a g e s u s e d on t h e IS-2 model, when s c a l e d t o f u l l - s c a l e dimensions, i s approximately 6 inches.

112

!a
Generally, i t is f e l t t h a t c l o s e t o t h e bipod, say t h e f i r s t 8 t o 10 inches, t h e CLOT environment was a good s i m u l a t i o n o f t h a t p r o v i d e d by t h e STS-1 nominal trajec1:ory. F u r t h e r away, the r m s p r e s s u r e l e v l s a r e 3 t o 4 dB t o o h i g h and c o r r e s p o n d more t o t h e t i l e d e s i g n - l o a d l e v e l s r a t h e r t h a n t o t h o s e e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e n o m i n a l STS-1 t r a j e c t o r y . More d e t a i l s on t h e v i b r o a c o u s t i c and b u f f e t s i m u l a t . i o n s f o r p a n e l 2OC a r e c o n t a i n e d i n a p a p e r by S c h u e t z , e t a1 ( r e f . 8 ) .

CONCLUDING REFIAKKS
The p r e s e n t p a p e r d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o c e d u r e s and equipment u s e d t o p r o v i d e a r e a l i s t i c t i m e - v a r y i n g e n v i r o n m e n t € o r a r r a y s of S h u t t l e t i l e s bonded t o s t r u c t u r e s which a c c u r a t e l y d u p l i c a t e t h o s e on t h e S h u t t l e . S p e c i a l probl.ems which were encount.ered b e c a u s e of t h e b l o c k a g e of t h e bipod and t h e h i g h Piach numbers r e q u i r e d f o r p a n e l 20C were overcome w i t h t h e a i d o f c o r r e l a t i o n s of d a t a from a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t i n g t u n n e l t e s t s . T h e p a n e l was s u b j e c t e d t o a t l e a s t 100 l o a d c y c l e s w i t h no a p p a r e n t s t r u c t u r a l d e g r a d a t i o n . S i n c e p a n e l 20C t e s t s were f i r s t - f l i g h t c r i t i c a l , i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t i f y i n g d u r i n g t h e t e s t s t h a t , a f t e r one S h u t t l e missior: ( 4 load c y c l e s ) , t h e panel appeared t o be f l a w l e s s . % v e r a 1 ' l l e s s o n s l e a r n e d " from t h i s s t u d y a p p e a r t o b e worthy of n o t e : r o r example, t h e maximum a e r o d y n a m i c l o a d s and a c o u s t i c p r e s s u s e s i n the v i c i n i t y o f a t t a c h m e n t s t r u c t u r e s , ramps, c o n e s , and f o r w a r d - f a c i n g s t e p s may w e l l o c c u r a t s u p e r s c m i c s p e e d r a t h e r t h a n the customary h i g h e s t free-st ream dynamic p r e s s u r e c o n d i t i o n s which o c c u r a t t r a n s o n i c s p e e d . T h e f l o w s i n Lhese r e g i o n s t e n d t o b e c l i a r a c t e r i z e d by h i g h p r e s s u r e s and s e v e r e pressure g r a d i e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e s o l u t i o n of p r e s s u r e d a t a i n a r e a s where tlirrr a r e a t t a c h m e n t s t r u c t u r e s , e t c . , TTIUSL l x c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g s t r u c t u r a l l o a d s i n u n c l u t t e r e d r e l a t i v e l y f l a t a r e a s . D e f i n i t i o n o f t h e f l o w i n v i c i n i t y of these p r o t u b e r a n c e - t y p e g e o m e t r i e s c a n be c a r r i e d o u t t h r o u g h l o c a l i z e d t e s t i n g if t tic. t r s t s are b a s e d on a p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l f l o w c o n d i t i o n s a p p r o a c h i n g t h e p r o t u b e r a n c e b7hich can b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s . I t h a s b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e s e l o c a l i z e d t e s t s c a n b e s c a l e d t o a v a r i e t y of
o t h e r conditions r e q u i r e d €or either f l i g h t or wind-tunnel simulations and although

w t e s s e n t i a l t o s u c c e s s , good c o r r e l a t i o n s of t h e s e d a t a can be i n v a l u a b l e s c a l i n g a i d s , part jcularly w h e n estahl i s h i r i g dynamic s i n i i i l a t i o n s s u c h a s t h e 8 - F t . TPT t ,:-sts d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s p a p e r .

113

REFERENCES
1.

B o b b i t t , Percy J . ; Edwards, C . L . W.: and B a r n w e l l , R i c h a r d TJ.: Simulation of Time-Varying A s c e n t Loads on A r r a y s of S h u t t l e T i l e s i n a L a r g e T r a n s o n i c Wind Tunnel. NASA TM-84529, November 1982. P r i c e , E a r l A . , J r . and S t a l l i n g s , R o b e r t L . , J r . : I n v e s t i g a t i o n of T u r b u l e n t S e p a r a t e d Flows i n t h e V i c i n i t y of Fin-Type P r o t u b e r a n c e s a t S u p e r s o n i c Flach Numbers. NASA TN D-3804, F e b r u a r y 1967.
Ames R e s e a r c h S t a f f , E q u a t i o n s , T a b l e s and C h a r t s f o r Compressible Flow, NACA Rep. 1135, 1953.

2.

3,

4.

Li, T. Y . and G e i g e r , R. E.:

S t a g n a t i o n P o i n t of a B l u n t Body i n Hypersonic Flow, J o u r n a l of A e r o n a u t i c a l S c i e n c e s , Vol. 2 4 , No. 1, J a n u a r y 1957, pp 25-32.

5.

B u f f e t Loads on S h u t t l e Thermal-Protection-System T i l e s . Coe, C h a r l e s F.: Shock & Vib. B u l l . , B u l l . 52, P t . 2 , U.S. Dep. Def., May 1982, pp 147-155. S t a t i c C a l i b r a t i o n f o r Measurement Rummler, Donald R. and P i n s o n , L a r r y D.: o f Loads i n Wind Tunnel T e s t s on S h u t t l e S u r f a c e T i l e s . A C o l l e c t i o n of T e c h n i c a l P a p e r s - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 23rd S t r u c t u r e s , S t r u c t u r a l D y n a m i c s and Materials C o n f e r e n c e , P a r t 1, May 1 9 8 2 , pp 374-380. ( A v a i l a b l e as AIM-82-0754). Hanly, R i c h a r d D . : S u r f a c e - P r e s s u r e F l u c t u a t i o n s A s s o c i a t e d With Aerodynamic Noise on t h e Space S h u t t l e Launch C o n f i g u r a t i o n a t T r a n s o n i c and S u p e r s o n i c Speeds. P r o c e e d i n g s - AlAA/ASME/SAE 1 7 t h S t r u c t u r e s , S t r u c t u r a l Dynamics and Materials C o n f e r e n c e , May 1976, pp 241-247. S c h u e t z , P. H . ; P i n s o n , L . D . ; and T h o r n t o n , H. T . , J r . : Unsteady Environments and Responses o f t h e S h u t t l e Combined Loads O r b i t e r T e s t . Shock & V i b . B u l l . , B u l l . 5 2 , P t . 2 , U.S. Dep. Def., May 1982, pp 157-163.

6.

7.

8.

114

ORIGfNAL PAGE I 3 OF POOR QUALITY

ALL D I M E N S I O N S I N INCHES / O D L LOCATION COMB I NED LOADS TEST NOSE GEAR DOOR

\
DELETED

COMBINED LOADS TEST WIO ANTENNA

DIR
CONFIG 2OA

Figure 1.- Sketches showing locations and dimensions of panel configurations 20A, 20B, and 20C.

Figure 2 . - Sketch showing l o c a t i o n of panel 20D.

115

IB E A M P 1 CTURE
SKIN STR 1 NGER-

SKIN OMITTED FOR

FRAMES

-

SANDWICt DOORS_ .

-5
-BIPOD

-65.00

Figure 3.- Structural features of panel 2OC. All dimensions are in inches.

PROJECTED STS - 1
A',

2.0

1.0

i

.5
30 40
50

60 70 ASCENT TIME. sec

80

90

Figure 4.- Variation with time of free-stream Mach number, static pressure, and dynamic pressure f o r nominal STS-1 trajectory.

116

ORIGdNAL PAGE B

OF

POOR QUALITY

WEIGHTED " F A I R "

0
1.6 -

lAlO5A (FAIRED DATA) IA81

0
BIPOD LOCAT ION

0
x/L

OA253

(a)

M ,

= 0.60.

1.6

-

BlPOD LOCATION

(b)

, M

= 0.90.

Figure 5.- Longitudinal variations of pressure along centerline of Shuttle for four Mach numbers.

117

1.6 2.0.
I I

BIPOD
I I
I I

LOCAT I ON
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-. 8
-.4

0

cp

.4
.8
0
WE I GHTED "FA I R" IA105A (FAIRED DATA)

1.6

1
I

2.0

I

I

BlPOD LOCATION
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

(d)

, M

=

1.40.

Figure 5 . - Concluded.

118

ONSET FLOVc

I >
-

TURBULEIUT B O J N D A R Y LAYER

S E P A R A T 1 3 K \‘/EbG’

Figure 6 . - S k e t c h and shadowgraph showing f e a t u r e s of flow ahead of b i p o d .

a

e

Figure 7.- The 0 . 2 2 - s c a l e bipod niountt.ti o n flat p l a t e used in s u p e r s o n i c Mach number t e s t s i n UPWT.
119

fl

=

2.36
1.4
IN

D

=

' 1
M
2.30 D = 2,O IN,
=

5

b

4
'LOCAL

P~~~~~

3

PRESSURE CORRELATION CURVE

0

2

Figure 8 . - Comparison of pressure interaction ahead of v e r t i c a l cylinder and subscale Shuttle bipod

.

n BIPOD

AFT

n B IPOD' FORWARD

"ONSET

a

PLATEAU PRESSURE-

/
1

PRESSURE CORRELATION CURVE

6

5

4

x'/D

1

0

Figure 9.- Typical pressure distribution ahead of Shuttle bipod a t supersonic Mach number corresponding t o maximum bow shock pressure rise.
120

0
Q
0

SYMBO

'*'ONSET

0

1,8
b

9

2,o

2,50

I

I

1

1

I

1

I

0

1

2

3
x'/h

4

5

6

e

Figure 10.- Centerline pressure distributions ahead of Shuttle bipod over test range of supersonic Mach numbers in UPWT.

P~~~~~~

PON SET

3l
2
1 ,
I
I

FORWARD-FACING STEPS
I

0

1

2

3
MONSET

1

4

I

5

6

Figure 11.- Variation of ratio of ppLATEAU to pONSET with M~~~~~ including comparison of empirical expression with experimental data.

121

;YMBOL 'ONSET - - SCALE 0 1.50 1.563 U 1.60 1.437

0
A
b

1,70 1,330
1,80 1,238
1.90

n
0
0

a

0

2 so0 2.10 2.16 2,36 2.50

1,157 1 087 1.025 ,991 I892
I
I

833

I

1

1

I

I

I

I

0

1

2

3
x'/h

4

5

6

Figure 12.- V a r i a t i o n of nondimensional c o r r e l a t e d centerline pressure = 1.5 t o 2.5. w i t h distance for

MoNsET

I

'i

Figure 1-7.- Parameters c o r r e l a t i n g e x t e n t o f separation ahead of S h u t t l e bipod a t s u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers.

122

SYMBOL 0

'SCALE

0

0
A
b

n
0

0
0

763 ,833 ,884 ,922 ,950 ,972 988 ,996
*
I

a

2,50

I

1,013 ,533 1I020

I

1

I

1

I

n

J

0

1

2

3
(x'/ h )XSCALE

4

5

6

Figure 14.- Correlated variation of nondimensional pressure with nondimensional distance ahead of bipod for MONSET = 1.5 to 2.5.

4

SCALE

.95

3

.05

.00

.66 .65

.645
.65 .67

.10 .20 .40 .60

29 30 31 32 33

2.60 2.80 3.00

1.01

3.10
3.20

1.03 1.035 1.04 1.035

4~ 43 44 45 46

4.cu

.- . --

4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60

.29 .19

.125
.09 .04
.03
.02

.EO
.10

.00
1

U
v) U

n

1

0

I

I

I

1

0

1

2
(x'/ h )X,,

3

4

5

Figure 15.- Incremental pressure correlation curve for separated flow ahead of bipod derived from UPWT data.
123

LRY

(a)

MONSET

= 1.5.

(b)

"ONSET

=

l.s.

t

Figure 1 6

.- O i l

flow p h o t o g r a p h s u s e d t o c o r r e l a t e l a t e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s vf s e p a r a t e d - f l o w r e g i o n ahead o f b i p o d .

124

(c)

MONSET = 2.1.

Figure 1 6 . - Concluded.

125

-1.2
-,8

-,4
0
CP

.4

0 IA105A (FAIRED DATA)

0 IA81

,8

--- UPWT DATA CORRELATION
1,6
2,o
x/L
Figure 1 7 . Comparison of c e n t e r l i n e p r e s s u r e d a t a on S h u t t l e o r b i t e r s u r f a c e i n v i c i n i t y of bipod attachment s t r u c t u r e between o r b i t e r and e x t e r n a l tank.

- WEIGHTED "FAIR"

0 OA253

SHUTTLE BIPOD

VERTICAL CYLINDER

Figure 18.- Assessment of v a l i d i t y of shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e c o r r e l a t i o n developed from UPW tests of 0.22-scale b i p o d .
126

a
--******

14

- 3.799 -----.3.7
3.78 3.78

2.10 1.80 1.655 1.655

0.98 1.96 3.19 3.19

0.610 0.767
1.000

1.000

1.94 3.55 5.50 5.50

522 685
882

FULL 7/8
3/4

882

1/2

3.54 4.39 4.67 4.15

12
10

ORIGWX PAGE !g OF POOH QUALITY

:I ;
/---

:I :'/

:I:

a
PLOCAL.

6

PSI

/

a

a .. .

// /'

.'

cc___

-------*.---- ----_ ** -._ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - * -I

.

.
b

a

4
BIPOD

COMMON SHOCK LOCATION

45

I

40

1

35

I

30

1

I

1

25

20
X,IN.

15

I

1 '7 '
I

2
'

I

10

5

0

F i g u r e 19.- Comparison of e q u a l bow-shock-strength p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ahead of b i p o d , i n c l u d i n g f u l l - s c a l e bipod a t f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n and subscale b i p o d s a t Mach numbers c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o 8-Pt. TPT.

. B I POD LOCAT 1ONS

'

SHOCK

a

REAL TILES

INSTRUMENTED TILES

Ff-gure 20.- S e p a r a t e d - f l o w f o o t p r i n t s on p a n e l 20C f o r v a r i o u s scale b i p o d s w i t h i d e n t i c a l shock s t r e n g t h s and l o n g i t u d i n a l l o c a t i o n s .
127

1.4,

[.

ORIGINAL PAGE IS

OF POOR Q U A L m

1.0

tc

"SHOCK 0

.a

1
1 1

.4

.2 -

o t c ,
1.0

1

I

1

4

L

I

,

,

I

,

I

1.5
M~~~~~

2.0

2.5

Figure 21.- Variation of detachment distance €or bipod bow shock with onset Mach number.

3.0

2.6
2.2

MACH 1.8
NO.
1.4

1.0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

3 0

40

50

60

t, sec

70

80

90

100

Figure 22.- Variations of free-stream, onset, and local Mach numbers with time for panel 2OC simulation.

128

DYNAMIC PRESSURE.
PSf

F i g u r e 23.- V a r i a t i o n of f r e e - s t r e a m , o n s e t , and l o c a l dynamic p r e s s u r e s w i t h t i m e € o r p a n e l 20C s i m u l a t i o n .

5-

4 -

3-

AP,

psi

/
OL,
I I

I

I

30

40

50

60
t. sec

70

I

"SHOC Y

I

I

J

80

90

100

Figure 24.- Variation of p r e s s u r e jump a c r o s s b i p o d bow shock w i t h t i m e compared w i t h t h a t f o r a normal. s h o c k
with free-stream onset conditions.

129

AX^^^^^
in.

I
4

1
0

L

FREE

STREAM

,
40

I

I

I

I

1

I

30

50

60
1. sec

70

80

90

100

Figure 25.- Variation of bow-shock detachment distance with time f o r STS-1.

3.

O r

2.0 M~~~~~

2-5L
I

/-

/
STS -1

8 ft TPT MACH HI STORY TO LATE STS-I ApSHOCK

1.5

1.01

I
I

1 -

\

\

\

\

I

I

1

1

I

I

L
I

40

50

60

70

I

80
t. sec

90

100

110

120

130

Figure 26.- Time variation of STS-1 onset Mach number compared with that required in 8-Ft. TPT simulation to match STS-1 bow-shock pressure jumps.
130

800 700

---I
TPT LOCALq (12 in. AHEAD OF BIPOD) REQ'D TO MATCH
8 ft

-

600 "* PSf

500 -

\

400 -

-----

\

\

\

L -

Figure 2 7 . - Comparison of t i m e variations of dynamic pressure a t point 12 i n . ahead o f f u l l - s c a l e bipod f o r STS-1 trajectory with that 12 i n . ahead of h a l f - s c a l e bipod i n 8-Ft. TPT when simulating STS-1 APSHOCK t i m e history.

4-

3-

APSH,c K

ps i
2-

1\

ApSHOCK FOR LOCAL

\
I

DYNAMIC PRESSURE SIMULATION
I I

0-

I

1

I

t . sec

Figure 28.- Shock-pressure jump versus t i m e f o r STS-1 trajectory and f o r 8-Ft. TPT when simulating time v a r i a t i o n of point dynamic pressure q 1 -

131

y SHOCK

\ \

*%HOCK

STANDOFF DISTANCE WHEN STS-I I S SIMULATED -

NO BlPOD TRANSLATION

01

I

I

I

40

50

60

I

1

I

I

70

80
1. sec

90

100

110

120

130

I

F i g u r e 2 9 . - V a r i a t i o n of shock s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e f o r STS-1 t r a j e c t o r y w i t h t i m e compared w i t h that f o r f i x e d halfs c a l e b i p o d i n 8 - F t . TPT d u r i n g s i m u l a t i o n of STS-1 t i m e variations. "SHOCK

Figure 30.- Photograph o f p a n e l 2OC i n s t a l l e d i n false f l o o r i n 8-Ft. TPT t e s t s e c t i o n .

132

DI

9 PCF POLYURETO STRUCTURE

(DFIJJ

11
LI

\A/v V/ 1

4

I

I NSTFILJJNTED
Figure 31.- Sketch showing location of instrumented t i l e s and types of t i l e s i n s t a l l e d on test panel for configuration 20C.

I

k-.- ----I

TIME

_-----

I

I
F U P ANGLE

4I

I

I

I

I I

AXSHOCK I
0-0

1

I

I

I

I I

I

I

Figure 32.- Schematic i l l u s t r a t i n g s t e p s required t o simulate STS-1 time variations of bow-shock-induced pressures and shock standoff distances for panel 20C.
133

OR1

OF

(a) Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel.

(3)

Langley 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel.

Figure 33.- Shadowgraph and schlieren photographs from UPWT and 8 - F t . TPT at Mach number of approximately 1.6.

134

30
25
20

10

5
01 40
I

I

I

I

I

50

60

70

80

90

I 100

I

110

I 121.5 0

I
10

I

1

1
40

20

30

1, sec
Figure 3 4 . - Time variations of d i f f u s e r - f l a p a n g l e f o r
three iterations attempted.

~

60

70

80

90

100 t. sec

110

120

130
with

140

Figure 35.- V a r i a t i o n s o f bow-shock p r e s s u r e jump dpSHOCK t i m e f o r STS-1 and f o r 8-Ft. TPT s i m u l a t i o n .

135

12 AVERAGE SHOCK STANDOFF DISTANCE DURING SIMULATION

10

8
AXSHOCK’

in.

6
4

2

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

60

70

80

90 t. sec

100

110

120

Figure 36.- Variation of average shock-detachment distance with time based on six load cycles.

‘r

NOTE: ONE MI S S ION DEFl NED AS 121.5 sec LONG

:
136

TRANSLATION.
in.

-2

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 121.5 t, sec

Figure 37.- Variation of p o s i t i o n of half-scale bipod with time.

a

OIR!G.INAL F&CZ F S OF P W R QUALrrY

12 -

lo

I

-

8’TPT SIMULATION TEST AVERAGE SHOCK LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO FACE OF FULL-SCALE BIPOD (PLOTTED 3.5 sec LATE)

SHOCK LOCATION RELATIVE TO FACE OF FULL-SCALE BIPOD.

a4

STS-1 SHOCK LOCATION RELATIVE TO BIPOD FACE .

in.

-

2

-

60

70

80

90
t. sec

10 0

110

120

Figure 38.- Comparison of time variation of location of STS-1 bow shock relative to face of b i p o d with location of shock in 8-Ft. TPT simulation.

1.2
1.0

r

RMS

PRESSURE’ dB

-6,

1
I
I

c

-1s-2, b2.10 O STS-I, hk2.10

171

11;s

OFPLIdB

PRECAL PANEL R7YIo PRESSURE S PRECAL PANEL ?Y=O IN.)\

r-/
U

k
I

T ,

RANGE OF DATA FROM TEST PANEL 1 I N . AHEAD

OF BIPOD

.4

I

1

30

35

,I 40

I

I

1

I , (

45

50

55

60

65

,

PANEL Z O C STATION. I N .

Figure 39.- Variation of rms sound pressures ahead of bipod from panel 20C tests compared with IS-2 and STS-1 results.

137

SHUTTLE BOOSTER S E P A R A T I O N A E R O D Y N A M I C S
Mark K.

Craig

NASA Johnson Space Center
Bouston, Texas Henry S . Dresser Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Corp. Downey, C a l i f o r n i a
SUM M A RY

A w i n d t u n n e l t e s t p r o g r a m o f some c o m p l e x i t y was u s e d t o d e f i n e t h e a e r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s e x e r t e d on t h e s p a c e s h u t t l e s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r s and o r b i t e r l e x t e r n a l t a n k d u r i n g s t a g i n g . In these tests, problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e u s e of up t o t h r e e models i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y and w i t h t h e need t o s i m u l a t e h i g h p r e s s u r e s e p a r a t i o n m o t o r p l u m e s were h a n d l e d i n a u n i q u e a n d e f f e c t i v e m a n n e r . A new m e t h o d was d e v e l o p e d f o r e f f i c i e n t l y o r g a n i z i n g d a t a w h i c h is a f u n c t i o n o f a l a r g e number of i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . Data d e r i v e d from t h e t e s t program d r a s t i c a l l y reduced p r e v i o u s e s t i m a t e s of aerodynamic u n c e r t a i n t i e s and a l l o w e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t h e s e p a r a t i o n s y s t e m a t t h e d e s i g n maximum s t a g i n g d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e . Reduction of f l i g h t d a t a has i m p l i c i t l y v e r i f i e d t h e s t a g i n g aerodynamics d a t a b a s e and its associated uncertainties.

INTRODUCTION S t a g i n g of t h e space s h u t t l e ' s s o l i d r o c k e t b o o s t e r s (SRB's) o c c u r s under c o n d i t i o n s which produce s i g n i f i c a n t aerodynamic f o r c e s and t h e r e m a i n i n g o r b i t e r l e x t e r n a l t a n k o n b o t h t h e s e p a r a t i n g SRB's (OET). An a c c u r a t e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s e f o r c e s is e s s e n t i a l t o t h e d e s i g n of t h e s e p a r a t i o n s y s t e m b e c a u s e o f t h e s t r i n g e n t m o t i o n c o n s t : r a i n t s imposed by t h e s h u t t l e ' s u n i q u e asymmetric c o n f i g u r a t i o n . D u r i n g s t a g i n g , t h e SRB'S m u s t t r a n s l a t e a f t w i t h o u t a d v e r s e d i s p l a c e m e n t s or r o t a t i o n s t o a v o i d r e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e e x t e r n a l t a n k This paper i n t h e yaw p l a n e and w i t h t h e o r b i t e r ' s w i n g s i n p i t c h . w i l l address t h e s t r a t e g y developed t o d e f i n e t h e s e aerodynamic f o r c e s , w i l l d i s c u s s t h e f i n a l wind t u n n e l t e s t (IA193) u n d e r t a k e n t o e s t a b l i s h a d a t a b a s e , w i l l d i s c u s s t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e d a t a on s e p a r a t i o n c l e a r a n c e a n a l y s e s , and w i l l p r e s e n t f l i g h t d a t a s u p p o r t i n g d a t a base v e r i f i c a t i o n .

, . * .. ,... -. ... . , 2

...

..a,.--

. .
,

.

. ..

Preceding page blank

/

139

SYMBOLS

cN

normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t side force coefficient r o l l i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t y a w i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t nozzle throat diameter geodetic altitude j e t Mach d i s k h e i g h t Mach n u m b e r mo 1e c u l a r w e i g h t

c1

'm
'n d

j

h
hMD

M

MU
PO

static pressure
dynamic p r e s s u r e u n i v e r s a l gas constant

'REF
T

reference area temp e r a t u re time earth-relative a n g l e of a n g l e of attack sideslip velocity

t

'RE L
01

B
Y
AX

specific heat r a t i o l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p l a c e m e n t o f SRB from m a t e d p o s i t i o n l a t e r a l d i s p l a c e m e n t of S R B f r o m m a t e d p o s i t i o n

AY

140

normal displacement of S R B from mated position

acl
AB

S R B pitch angle relative to OET S R B yaw angle relative to OET

nozzle lip angle

cb

moment u n r

Subscripts:

FLT
ISOL

flight isolated vehicle jet

j

OT
PROX
RSRB

orbiterlexternal tank proxim ity right-hand S R B wind tunnel stagnation condition
B O O S T E R SEPARATION

TUN
0

The shuttle solid rocket boosters ( S R B ’ s ) are separated a t burnout from the launch vehicle by means of two basic phenomena. Longitudinal separation is achieved a s a result of the higher a x i a l
acceleration

of t h e o r b i t e r / e x t e r n a l t a n k (OET).

Lateral

and

normal

i s a c h i e v e d , h o w e v e r , by t h e application o f thrust and Unlike previous cylindrical launch aerodynamic forces to the SRB’S. vehicles, control of these non-longitudinal forces is critical to assure that no recontact occurs. Separation motion is initiated by the firing of eight solid propellant booster separation motors (BSH’S)

separation

on each S R B , four forward in the S R B nose frustrum and four aft on the base skirt. The motors produce 2 1 , 7 0 0 lbs thrust each over a very short burn time ( 0 . 6 8 sec) which was selected to minimize impingement of the exhaust plume on the sensitive orbiter thermal protection tiles. Orientation of the BSM‘s (figure 1 ) was also selected to minimize impingement; the motors‘ nozzles are canted 40’ from vertical away from the orbiter in pitch and 20’ toward the orbiter in roll. This unusual impingement-avoiding motor orientation has two direct effects on separation aerodynamics. The first, and most obvious, is that a severe disturbance of the vehicle flowfield (figure 2 ) can be anticipated a s a result of the forward-facing jet. The second effect

I

141

L

is that the energy of this jet, and its resulting disturbance, will be greater than otherwise required because the BSM thrust must be elevated to account for cosine l o s s e s associated with the 40' pitch cant and the shallow 20' inboard roll.

Staging occurs under supersonic conditions with Mach numbers in the range of 4.0 to 4 . 5 and dynamic pressures up to a design limit of 75 psf. Typical conditions are a s follows:
t
=

126 sec

a

q = 32 psf
=
2O

"REL
h

= 4 , 6 0 0 fps = 1 5 4 , 0 0 0 ft
= 4.3

8

=

oo

M

WIND TUNNEL TEST A P P R O A C H Three basic aerodynamic phenomena must be modeled in determining separation aerodynamics through test: (1) the proximity effect of one vehicle's flowfield on those of nearby vehicles, ( 2 ) the j e t interaction effect of the BSM plumes on the flowfield surrounding all of the vehicles, and ( 3 ) the effect of direct BSM plume impingement on the external tank. Each of these phenomena is a function of the orientation of the OET with respect to the freestream flow and the relative displacements and orientations between the vehicles. The jet interaction and plume impingement effects are also a function of a plume scaling parameter. This knowledge defines the set of eight independent variables which must be simulated in a separation wind tunnel test (figure 3 ) . The effects of Mach number and Reynolds number have been found from previous tests to be second order over the range o f anticipated flight conditions and were thus included in the data base uncertainty. The dependent variables, or aero coefficients, derived from the test take the form of BSM plume-on and plume-off proximity increments, that is, coefficient increments t o be added to SRB and OET freestream aerodynamic data. Data Organization The use of eight independent variables in a data base can present severe difficulties if a standard square data grid is used. The mo8t obvious difficulty is that the number of test d a t a points required to fill the grid will be quite large since it is a function of the number of tested values o f each independent variable raised to the eighth power. The squareness of the grid in 8-dimensional space will also assure that most of the data points are far-removed from areas of interest and, in fact, that many data points will be required in
142

loci8tions which a r e p h y s i c a l l y u n r e a l i z e a b l e due t o model o r s t i n g interference. T h i s can b e m o s t e a s i l y s e e n i n t h e p r o x i m i t y i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s A x , A y , Az, Aa , a n d AB A t a large Ax the r e q u i r e d r a n g e of t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w i l l b e l a r g e d u e t o t h e n e e d t o A t A x = 0 , however, t h e account f o r s e p a r a t i o n motion d i s p e r s i o n s . o t h e r p r o x i m i t y v a r i a b l e s have o n l y t h e v a l u e of z e r o s i n c e t h i s c o n o t i t u t e s t h e SRB's m a t e d p o s i t i o n . To s u p e r i m p o s e t h e g r i d r e q u i r e d a t a l a r g e Ax o n Ax = 0 w o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t d a t a b e t a k e n a t p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v i n g m o d e l i n t e r f e r e n c e a n d would. r e s u l t i n m o s t , i f n o t a l l , of t h e d a t a b e i n g f a r removed from t h e o n l y p o i n t of i n t e r e s t , t h e mated p o s i t i o n .

.

T h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s h a v e b e e n c i r c u m v e n t e d by d e v e l o p i n g a u n i q u e d a t a o r g a n i z a t i o n concept t o handle t h e five proximity independent variables. T h i s new a p p r o a c h , d e s i g n a t e d t h e " h y p e r c u b e " f o r m a t , a l l o w s d a t a t o be p l a c e d o n l y a l o n g r e q u i r e d s e p a r a t i o n p a t h s . A t e a c h Ax t o b e t e s t e d two 4 - d i m e n s i o n a l h y p e r c u b e s a r e s i t u a t e d s o a s t o c!ncompa8s a n t i c i p a t e d d i s p e r s i o n s i n Ay, Az, Aci, a n d A B ; a n o u t e r cube encompassee a l l d i s p e r s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g system f a i l u r e s , w h i l e an i n n e r cube i n c l u d e s t h e nominal s e p a r a t i o n p a t h w i t h 3 0 d i s p e r s i o n s . The s e h y p e r c u b e s a r e n o t c o n s t r a i n e d t o h a v e p a r a l l e l o p p o s i t e s i d e s s o t h a t t h e y c a n b e s h a p e d t o m a t c h p h y s i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s ( f i g u r e 4). Dat a p o i n t s a r e t a k e n a t t h e v e r t i c e s of t h e h y p e r c u b e s ; i n a d d i t i o n , an i n t e r i o r p o i n t i s placed w i t h i n each hypercube t o i n c r e a s e t h e d a t a den s i t y i n a r e g i o n of i n t e r e s t . T h e Ax v a l u e s a t w h i c h h _ p e r c u b e s ya r e placed were-selected t o maintain constant t i m e increments a t the separation r e l a t i v e longitudinal acceleration rather than constant length increments. This increases the data density early i n the m o t i o n when t r e n d s a r e b e i n g e s t a b l i s h e d .

.

T h e u s e o f t h i s a p p r o a c h h a s p r o v i d e d a much h i g h e r d a t a d e n s i t y a l o n g s e p a r a t i o n t r a j e c t o r y p a t h s w h i l e r e d u c i n g t h e r e q u i r e d number of d a t a p o i n t s by a f a c t o r o f a t l e a s t 2 0 f r o m a s q u a r e d g r i d . A s p e c i a l a l g o r i t h m has been developed which t r a n s f o r m s t h e s e 4-dimensional a r b i t r a r y s h a p e s i n t o 4-dimensional cubes 60 t h a t a low o r d e r polynomial c a n be e a s i l y f i t t o t h e v e r t i c e s and i n t e r i o r
point,

thus providing interpolation.

independent v a r i a b l e s a , B

,

I n t e r p o l a t i o n in t h e r e m a i n i n g

and t h e plume s c a l i n g parameter is h a n d l e d

i n a similar manner, a l t h o u g h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s i s b a s e d i n i t i a l l y on 3 - d i m e n s i o n a l c u b i c a l s h a p e s s i n c e t h e r e a r e no p h y s i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e c o n s t r a i n t s t o be taken i n t o a c c o u n t . I n a d d i t i o n t o h y p e r c u b e d a t a , t e s t p o i n t s were a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t o s u p p o r t t h e d e f i n i t i o n of d a t a u n c e r t a i n t i e s . One c l a s s o f p o i n t s c o n s t i t u t e a l t e r n a t e p a t h s t h r o u g h t h e hypercubes and a r e a l s o As w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of s e p a r a t i o n m o t i o n ( f i g u r e 5 ) . l a t e r , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between d a t a o b t a i n e d a t t h e s e p o i n t s and t h a t p r e d i c t e d by t h e i n t e r p o l a t o r c o n s t i t u t e s a d a t a u s e e r r o r d u e primarily t o data non-linearity. A s e c o n d c l a s s o f t e a t p o i n t s was o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e SRB's i n asymmetric p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e OET t o e v a l u a t e t h e e r r o r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s s e m b l i n g t h e d a t a b a s e assuming symmetry.

143

Model Configuration

ORIGiNAL PAGE 1 s OF POOR Q U A L m

All testing used to define the SRB separation aero data base was conducted in the U. S . Air Force Arnold Engineering and Development Center/Von Karman Facility tunnel "A" using a 1% scale model of the space shuttle vehicle. This facility was selected because of its efficient captive trajectory system ( C T S ) which provides rapid computerized movement of models in the tunnel without interrupting the primary tunnel airflow.
In BSM plume-on testing, the OET was placed on the C T S sting and the two SRB's were placed on a specially designed screw-jack adapter to the primary sting. This adapter allowed automatic movement of the SRB's in the yaw plane but required manual placement in pitch. The BSM plume-on test installation is shown in figure 6 . Separate lines were provided to supply plume air to plenum chambers €or the forward and aft nozzle clusters in each SRB. The forward clusters were fed by air flowing through the balances. Care was taken to balance the plenum chamber pressures between forward and aft jets and between left and right SRB's by means of orifice meters in the individual supply lines. In plume-on testing, previous experience has shown that it is necessary to account f o r SRB-to-SRB flow interference as well as for the mutual coupling of the SRB's plume interference effects on the flowfield surrounding the OET. Hence, the use of both SRB's is required.

In plume-off testing, a single SRB was mounted on the CTS and moved through the hypercube matrix of points representing relative positions and attitudes of the SRB with respect to a fixed O E T . The model installation i s shown in figure 7 . Although forces and moment's were measured on both models, axial force and rolling moment were not measured on the SRB. The SRB model was equipped with a flow-through balance for use in plume-on testing making it impossible to measure axial force with any degree of accuracy. Rolling moment was also eliminated from the balance readings since it is negligible as a result of SRB body symmetry. Previous plume-off test experience indicated that SRB-to-SRB effects are minimal and that S R B effects on the OET are additive, thus justifying the u s e of a single SRB test procedure. Plume Scaling Technology studies (reference 1 , et a . conducted in the 1970's 11 indicated that the appropriate BSM plume scaling parameter was jet-tofreestream momentum flux ratio <<./,>. Plume interaction with a

J

freestream crossflow, as depicted in figure 8, i s then defined by the following empirical relationship for Mach disk height:

144

Scaling

<./T, J

in a separation wind tunnel test was not possible,

h o w e v e r , d u e t o c o n s t r a i n t s o n p l u m e g a s s u p p l y p r e s s u r e (1,500 p s i ) and the prohibitively small n o z z l e sizes required ( 1 1 3 2 i n c h throat A s a r e s u l t , j e t - t o - f r e e s t r e a m m o m e n t u m r a t i o (oj/@,)was diameter). s e l e c t e d o v e r :;s ., /a the plume scaling parameter. This choice 1 p r e s e r v e d t h e g e o m e t r i c s c a l i n g of h M D but r e m o v e d a n y d e p e n d e n c e o n n o z z l e s i z e , d,:

Using m o m e n t u m ratio scaling, nozzle throat size was doubled to m i n i m i z e t h e c h a n c e of n o z z l e p l u g g i n g a n d t h e c h a m b e r p r e s s u r e w a s r e d u c e d t o w i t h i n p l a n t g a s s u p p l y limits. Model nozzle area ratio w a s a d j u s t e d t o o b t a i n a g o o d m a t c h of p l u m e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a a n d h e n c e p r o p e r s i m u l a t i o n of t h e b l o c k a g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f l o w f i e l d in t e r i l c t i o n e f f e c t s

.

P l u m e g a s t e m p e r a t u r e and m o l e c u l a r w e i g h t a f f e c t j e t l f l o w f i e l d i n t e r a c t i o n by s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c i n g t h e e x t e r n a l f l o w s e p a r a t i o n d i s t a n c e u p s t r e a m of t h e n o z z l e f o r low m o l e c u l a r w e i g h t or h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e t r a n s v e r s e j e t s . T h i s e f f e c t is c o r r e l a t e d by t h e "RT" r a t i o as f o l l o w s :
=

-J = 0.
(RTloo

(RT 1

(To/MWIj
(T/MW),,

s i m u l a t i o n provides the rationale for using air as the injectant ~ R e f e r e n c e 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t "RT" effect.6 a r e n e g l i g i b l e f o r T c 7 . Since t h e values for flight ( ' E = 2.91) and test w i t h air ('c 4.6) a r e b e l o w t h i s l i m i t , u n h e a t e d air w a s s e l e c t e d to s i m u l a t e the B S M exhaust product plume. A summary of n o z z l e d e s i g n and p l u m e s i m u l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s is p r e s e n t e d in t a b l e 1. T h e s i m u l a t i o n v a l u e s r e p r e s e n t i n g m a t c h e d c o n d i t i o n s b e t w e e n f l i g h t a n d t e s t a r e noted.
1 1 I? ~

gas in wind tunnel plume testing.

T u n n e l o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m @./a, p l u m e s c a l i n g w i t h u n h e a t e d a i r a r e p r e s e n t e d in f i g u r e 9. T h e J o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t r e g i o n is d e f i n e d by t w o b o u n d a r i e s . T h e u p p e r b o u n d a r y is d e t e r m i n e d by t h e m a x i m u m p l u m e o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e in t h e t u n n e l , t h a t i s , t h e a i r s u p p l y limit. The tunnel lower operating boundary represents a f a c i l i t y p r i m a r y a i r f l o w l i m i t a t i o n w i t h no c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n t o model and plume blockage effects. The inclusion of blockage effects determined from previous testing m o v e s t h i s lower curve u p t o the d e s i g n a t e d " t u n n e l o p e r a t i n g curve." T h e separation d e s i g n limit b o u n d a r y (5 = 7 5 p s f ) w a s e s t a b l i s h e d by S R B s e p a r a t i o n s y s t e m d e s i g n requirements and is not a test limitation.

145

The tunnel operating curve in figure 9 provides the information required to select the two jet operating pressures to be used in the test: 9 0 0 psi corresponds to the separation design limit q = 75 p s f and 1,500 psi, corresponding to q = 45 psf, is the highest pressure obtainable within facility constaints. It should be noted that t h e minimum simulated dynamic pressure of 45 psf is well above the nominal 3 3 psf value. Extrapolation to this value will not be required, however, as previous testing has shown that higher values do not significantly affect separation aerodynamics; the flowfield has been disturbed to the greatest extent possible.

J

WIND TUNNEL TEST RESULTS
Hypercube Data

As might be expected, the hypercube data base geometry does not permit the parametric plotting of data as a function of single independent variables; rather, paths through the data base must b e constructed by, for example, connecting corresponding hypercube The incremental proximity p i t c h i n g corners a t successive a x ' s . moment coefficient data for a representative trajectory path through the data base is plotted in figure 10 a s a function of Ax. The proximity increment is defined as the difference between proximity and isolated aerodynamic coefficients. In accordance with the proximity approaches zero as increment definition, for B S M plume-on data ACm OET the S R B moves away. ACm , o n the other hand, approaches a value
S RB

representing the plume/flowfield interaction effect on the S R B . For approaches zero as it leaves the OET flowfield. plume-off data, ACm
SRB

Note that the separation aero data base extends back in Ax only to a value of 1,700 inches full scale; this represents the point at which the SRB nose clears the aft end of the OET and, thus, the terminus of separation. The use of aero coefficient proximity increments as dependent variables was selected to eliminate the need for generating a new separation aero data base each time a change was made to vehicle outer moldlines. Since the total aerodynamic coefficients are obtained by combining isolated aero coefficients with proximity increments, effects of minor configuration changes are adequately reflected in updates to the isolated aero o n l y . The effect on the proximity increments is negligible. Data Uncertainties The uncertainties associated with the S R B separation aero data base are composed of three components: an error resulting from the
146

a

h y p e r c u b e i n t e r p o l a t i o n p r o c e s s , a n e r r o r d u e t o t h e a s y m m e t r y of t h e m o t i o n o f t h e t w o SRB's w i t h respect to the OET, and a n error associated w i t h scaling the BSM plumes. The total coefficient u n c e r t a i n t i e s w e r e o b t a i n e d by r o o t - s u m - s q u a r i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of these three components. T a b l e s 2 a n d 3 p r e s e n t a s u m m a r y of t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e B S M p l u m e - o n a n d plume-off d a t a , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i c h a r e a s s u m e d t o b e at a 3 a level. The uncertainty component associated with interpolation error a c c o u n t s f o r t h e i n a b i l i t y of t h e h y p e r c u b e i n t e r p o l a t o r p o l y n o m i a l s to exactly m o d e l t h e d a t a and for the fact that the data base w a s g e n e r a t e d at a c o n s t a n t v a l u e of M a c h n u m b e r . This term was evaluated by c o m p a r i n g i n t e r p o l a t o r o u t p u t s t o test d a t a p o i n t s e s t a b l i s h e d along; r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r a j e c t o r y p a t h s w i t h i n , b u t n o t c o i n c i d e n t w i t h t h e h y p e r c u b e s , a n d t h e r e f o r e not i n t h e d a t a base. Three trajectory paths. w e r e c h o s e n t o p r o v i d e a r e f e r e n c e d a t a p o i n t w i t h i n t h e i n n e r c u b e , w i t h i n t h e o u t e r c u b e , a n d in a n a r e a of m o t i o n c l o s e i n t o t h e O E T ( f i g u r e 5). Data along these uncertainty paths was taken at a M a c h n u m b e r of 4 . 0 , w h e r e a s t h e h y p e r c u b e d a t a w a s t a k e n a t M a c h 4.5. T h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n e r r o r c o m p o n e n t w a s o b t a i n e d by d i f f e r e n c i n g t h e interpolated a e r o coefficient values and the tested v a l u e s ( f i g u r e 10) a n d i n t e g r a t i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e o v e r t i m e to o b t a i n a p a t h a v e r a g e . P o i n t s a t Ax's c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t 5 0.5 s e c o n d s w e r e g i v e n a h i g h e r The largest w e i g h t i n g b e c a u s e of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of f i r s t m o t i o n . i n t e g r a t e d e r r o r f r o m t h e t h r e e p a t h s is u s e d a s t h e c o e f f i c i e n t uncertainty. The uncertainty component associated w i t h asymmetric SRB motion a c c o u n t s f o r t h e e r r o r i n c u r r e d in p e r f o r m i n g a l l p l u m e - o n t e s t i n g w i t h t h e SRB's i n s y m m e t r i c p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e OET. A s y m m e t r y is n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p l u m e - o f f d a t a s i n c e o n l y o n e S R B was used. S R B a s y m m e t r y m o d i f i e s p l u m e - o n a e r o d y n a m i c s by e s t a b l i s h i n g u n e q u a l i m p i n g e m e n t of t h e B S M p l u m e s on t h e e x t e r n a l t a n k a n d by c a u s i n g a n a s y m m e t r i c i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e p l u m e s w i t h t h e f r e e s t r e a m flov. T h i s t e r m w a s e v a l u a t e d by d i f f e r e n c i n g t e s t d a t a o b t a i n e d in two representative asymmetric configurations f r o m d a t a
o b t a i n e d with

t h e SRB's

in t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g e y m m e t r i c p o s i t i o n s

in

t h e d s t a b a s e ; t h e l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e f o r e a c h c o e f f i c i e n t i,s d e f i n e d to be the uncertainty. T h e t h i r d a e r o u n c e r t a i n t y c o m p o n e n t r e s u l t s f r o m e r r o r s in p l u m e s c a l i n g , that is, errors incurred by using the jet-to-freestream m o m e n t u m ratio as the plume s i m u l a t i o n parameter. Sources of this e r r o r i n c l u d e t e s t - t o - f l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s in B S M n o z z l e g e o m e t r y , a t m o s p h e r i c c o n d i t i o n s ( R e y n o l d s number), a n d e x h a u s t p l u m e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (specific heat ratio, chemical constituents). Lack of suffic.ient d a t a on t h e s h u t t l e p r e c l u d e d e v a l u a t i o n of t h i s e r r o r d i r e c t l y f o r t h e S R B a e r o . A n e s t i m a t e of t h e S R B u n c e r t a i n t y w a s made, however, by evaluating test and flight data available from a The m i 1 i t a . r ~m i s s i l e w i t h a t r a n s v e r s e jet u s e d f o r a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l . d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n test a n d f l i g h t d a t a f o r t h i s m i s s i l e w a s c o n v e r t e d t o a n e r r o r in m o m e n t u m r a t i o w h i c h in t u r n w a s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a n S R B a e r o c o e f f i c i e n t error. Adequate flight data was available from the s h u t t l e t o a s s e s s t h e O E T a e r o p l u m e s c a l i n g error. Values were
147

deduced from comparisons between flight and dynamics m a t h m o d e l O E T y a w and roll rates during BSM firing. The level of the aerodynamic uncertainties used in the math model was varied until a good flightmath-model rate comparison w a s achieved. To be conservative, all of this uncertainty was assumed to be accounted for by a n error in plume scaling.
A

comparison of the plume-on aero uncertainties derived from test

I A 1 9 3 by the procedure outlined above with the values from previous

tests for the first manned orbital flight (FMOF) is presented in figure 1 1 . Previous uncertainty values were determined by root-sumsquaring the worst-case values of each of 16 individual components. Most of these components are accounted for in the current procedure's interpolation error and are more realistically dealt with in the integration process n o w used. The tests on w h i c h FMOF uncertainties w e r e based had certain facility difficulties which also increased the uncertainty levels, A comparison of the previous and updated plumeoff uncertainties is presented in figure 12. Effects o n Separation Dynamics Separation aerodynamics have a strong influence on separation m o t i o n and the vehicle-to-vehicle clearances which result f r o m t h a t motion. Figure 1 3 presents the minimum clearance w h i c h exists between a strut stub o n the external tank and the barrel of the S R B body a s a function of staging dynamic pressure. This particular clearance is usually the most critical in defining a safe separation. A t the dynamic pressures encountered during the orbital flight test program recontact w a s not predicted a n d , based o n a n analysis of flight d a t a , w a s not encountered. Using the aero uncertainties available at the time of STS-1 ( F M O F ) , however, a safe separation could not be demonstrated at the separation system design limit dynamic pressure of 7 5 psf. T h e uncertainties outlined above from test I A 1 9 3 have alleviated this situation and allowed system certification to the des ign limit. Flight data has served to implicitly validate these uncertainties. F i g u r e 1 4 presents the difference between vehicle y a w rates measured in flight and those predicted by the separation dynamics math model. T h e bands of 0 . 0 5 deglsec for the O E T and 0 . 4 0 deglsec € o r the S R B represent typical flight m i n u s predicted differences when the prediction is based o n nominal separation aerodynamics without uncertainties. T h e u s e of both the I A 1 9 3 and FMOF uncertainties to generate the predicted values causes a deviation from flight experience; the deviation is especially pronounced f o r the FMOF Uncertainties. The IA193 uncertainties appear to be slightly conservative. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A complex wind tunnel test program has been completed to define the aerodynamics associated w i t h S R B separation. T h e program has
148

a

d e v e l o p e d u n i q u e and e f f e c t i v e a p p r o a c h e s to t h e u s e of m u l t i p l e wind t u n n e l m o d e l s in c l o s e p r o x i m i t y , t h e scaling of h i g h energy forward f a c i n g jet e f f e c t s , and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and u s e o f n-dimensional d a t a w h i c h is s e v e r e l y c o n s t r a i n e d in terms of g e o m e t r y and d e n s i t y , F l i g h t e x p e r i e n c e h a s verified the v a l i d i t y o f the program. REFERENCES

1. Cohen, Leonard S., Coulter, L a w r e n c e J., and Egan, W i l l i a m J.: P e n e t r a t i o n s and M i x i n g of M u l t i p l e G a s J e t s S u b j e c t e d to a C r o s s Flow. A I A A J o u r n a l , Vol. 9, No. 4, 1971.
2. SThayer, W. J. 111 and Corlett, R. C.: G a s D y n a m i c and T r a n s p o r t P h e n o m e n a in the Two-Dimensional J e t f n t e r a c t i o n F l o w f i e l d . A I A A J o u r n a l , V o l . 10, No. 4, 1972.

149

TABLE 1.- BSM PLUME SINULATION S U b ~ Y
PARAMETER FREESTREAM DYNAMIC PRESSURE MACH NUMBER 'REYNOLDS NUMBER ALTITUDE
BSM JET CHARACTERISTICS CHAMBER PRESSURE CHAMBER TEMPERATURE AVERAGE SPECIFIC HEAT EXPANSION RATIO NOZZLE LIP ANGLE EXIT AREA EXIT MACH NUMBER EXIT PRESSURE MASS FLOW RATE MOMENTUM THRUST

ORIGlNAL PAGE B 3
OF

Qom QMm

FLIGHT (OPS) qw
MO C

MODEL DESIGN
165.6 PSF 1.82 x 106

55.0 PSF

ReN h

6.95 x 10s 142.830 FT
1800 PSlA

1134 PSIA

5435'R
1.22 5.026
BO

44.94 IN2 2.94 44.50 PSlA 181.1 LB,S I EC 20,000 LBf 22,000 LBf

0.01157 IN2 53.40 PSlA 0.1009 L ,S C B E J 6.03 LBy 6.647 LBf

JET TO FREESTREAM ) (SREF = 1 F T ~ FS THRUST RATIO MOMENTUM RATIO ( 4 J l b ) MASS FLOW RATIO

400

m j
252 224
658.4

I

401.4

PRESSURE RATIO MOMENTUM FLUX RATIO
(AT NOZZLE EXIT)

MACH DISK HEIGHT (FULL SCALE)

13zr1

1704.3 613

225.6

'REYNOLDS NUMBER BASED ON ORBITER LENGTH. LE = 107.5 FT

TABLE 2.I

BSFI PLUME-ON PROXIMITY
OET

AERO

3~ UNCERTAINTIES
-

RSRB

UNCERTAINTY

CN

~ ~ R ~ ~ A T 0.0350 N 0.0201 I O ASYMMETRY
0.0677 0.0256

1

I

cm

1

I

CY

1

I

0.0145
0.0732

I C! I 0.0096 I 0.0022
cn
0.0101
0.0093 0.0167 0.0029

PL

C J ~ ~ ~ A T I ~ 0.0155 N

0.0074
0.0334

0.0410
0.0851

0.0008
0.0037

RSS TOTAL

0.0778

TABLE 3.- BSN PLUIE-OFF PROXIMITY AERO 30 UNCERTAINTIES

150

! @

.

I

ORtG%iL'.n,LPACE

F B

OF POOR QUALlTY

0 0

FOUR BSMs FORWARD AND FOUR AFT PERFORMANCE WEB ACTION TIME R, 0.68 SECONDS VACUUM THRUSTlMOTOR 21,000 POUNDS AVERAGE OPERATING PRESSURE = 1700 PSI

-

n.

rigure 1.- Booster separation motor configuration.

Plume off

Plume on

Figure 2.- Separation motor disturbance of vehicle flowfield.

151

AX, AY, AZ ARE
ORTHOGONAL DISPLACEMENTS OF SRB NOSE FROM ITS MATED POSITION AX MEASURED POSITIVE AFT AY MEASURED POSITIVE OUTBOARD RIGHT A MEASURED POSITIVE Z DOWN AU (OSRB UOT) Afi a (SsRB POT) SEPARATION MOTOR JET-TO-FREESTREAM MOMENTUM RATIO IS ALSO INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

-

Figure 3.- SRB separation aerodynamics independent variables.

NOSE OUT

/CTS

YAW

AX = 1100 INCHES (FULL SCALE)
HYPERCUBE DATA POINTS
‘T CS
I I

a

2oc

YAW LIMIT

SRB DOWN

f 0
SRB

250

500
AY (INCHES)

I SRB 750 OUT

si
ORBITER ENGINE OUT TRAJECTORIES (20 DISPERSIONS)

a
250

NOMINAL TRAJECTORIES WITH 30 DISPERSIONS

Ao (DEGREES)

AY (INCHES)

Figure 4.152

Separation trajectory envelope cross section.

a

0

Figure 5.-

S e p a r a t i o n t r a j e c t o r y p a t h through hypercubes.

F i g u r e 6.- BSM

plume-on t e s t c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

153

ORlGlNAL PAGE 1 % OF POOR Q U A L m

Figure 7.-

BSM plume-off

test configuration.

Figure 8.- Transverse firing j e t flow mechanism.

154

a
NO1 NAL STA

THEORETICAL NOZZLE DESIGN CONDITIONS (PojTUN=1134 PSIA; q = 5 5 PSF)

ij LIMIT (75 PSF)

DESIGN STAGING

5
n = -

u)

1500

3
I .0 n

W '

U 3

fn fn

1000 'OjTUN
+j/+m

w
K

n
500

900
1500

z F a
w a

0

133.4 222.3

a

0 cw
7

0

0

20 40 60 80 FLIGHT DYNAMIC PRESSURE, q (PSF)

Figure 9.- BSM plume simulation envelope.

M = 4.0; UOT/~~OT =O/O

a

rn

----- INTERPOLATION TO TRAJECTORY PATHS
- O.O&
0
I

IA-193 TRAJECTORY PATH DATA

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 AX (INCHES)

-----

IA-193 TRAJECTORY PATH DATA INTERPOLATION TO TRAJECTORY PATHS MRC: XT 1097 YT 0 ZT 450

- 0.201
A.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 AX (INCHES)

Figure 10.- Proximity aero trends.
155

0.16
0.14 0.12

-

0.10 -

0.08

0.06
0.04

-

0.02 -

0-

a IA193 UNCERTAINTIES

0 FMOF UNCERTAINTIES

OSlGNlFlCANT PARAMETERS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

0.07

1

0.06

0.05 0.04

0.03 0.02

-

1

0.01 0-

0 FMOF UNCERTAINTIES

a IA193 UNCERTAINTIES

i

Figure 12.- BSM plume-off 3a uncertainties comparison.

156

ORIWNAL PAGE &
Of

POOR QUALITY

si W

J z
W

-

-

20

1
-

NOMINAL STAGING

DESIGN STAGING i j LIMIT (= 30)

z
W 2

2 15 a
O

0

I

t%

IA.193 AERODYNAMICS UNCERTAINTIES

z 0 I a a
w
A

10

2

m

5

a

I
STS-1 STS-2 STS-3 STS.;
1 0

k a O

0
n "
0

I
I

P I
20

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

STAGING DYNAMIC PRESSURE, ij (PSF)

ETlSRB RECONTACT

Figure 13.- Effect of separation aerodynamics on clearances.

A RATE = SIMULATION (DISPERSED AERODYNAMICS) MINUS SIMULATION

= FLIGHT MINUS SIMULATION (NOMINAL AERODYNAMICS)
30 COMPOSITE UNCERTAINTY WORST-ON-WORSTCOMBINATION OF 20 INDIVIDUAL AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENT UNCERTAINTIES
30 FMOF UNCERTAINTY
3 ,0
w

(NOMINAL AERODYNAMICS)

IA193 UNCERTAINTY
STS.1 THROUGH STS-4ARATE

c

0.2

$
u )

3 0.1

't
-2

STS-1 THROUGH STS-4 A RATE

o IA-193 UNCERTAINTY

PLUME-OFF
a

30 FMOF UNCERTAINTY

/

Figure 14

.- Aero u n c e r t a i n t y

effects on s e p a r a t i o n dynamics.

157

-.

SHUTTLE L A U N C H D E B R I S

--

SOURCES, C O N S E Q U E N C E S , S O L U T I O N S
Mark K . C r a i g NASA Johnson Space Center H o u s t o n , Texas
SUMMARY

Following t h e f i r s t s p a c e s h u t t l e f l i g h t , t h e s h u t t l e program e s t a b l i s h e d a team t o i d e n t i f y and e l i m i n a t e s o u r c e s of d e b r i s which h a d c a u s e d s e r i o u s damage t o t h e o r b i t e r t h e r m a l p r o t e c t i o n t i l e s . An a p p r o a c h was d e v e l o p e d f o r d e b r i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which i n v o l v e d p r e a n d p o s t - f l i g h t v e h i c l e a n d pad i n s p e c t i o n s , a n a l y t i c a s s e s s m e n t of d e b x i s t r a n s p o r t and i m p a c t phenomena, and a n a l y s i s of v a r i o u s p h o t o g r a p h i c r e c o r d s of t h e f l i g h t . D e b r i s s o u r c e s i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s approach were c l a s s i f i e d as being e i t h e r hazards t o f l i g h t o r s o u r c e s o f damage w h i c h i n c r e a s e d v e h i c l e r e f u r b i s h m e n t c o s t s w i t h o u t h a v i n g any s a f e t y i m p l i c a t i o n s . A s a r e s u l t of t h i s a s s e s s m e n t , a l l known h a z a r d o u s d e b r i s s o u r c e s on t h e l a u n c h v e h i c l e and pad have been e l i n i n a t e d ; o t h e r s o u r c e s a r e b e i n g removed i n a c o s t - e f f e c t i v e manner as appropriate.
INTRODUCTION

The s p a c e s h u t t l e v e h i c l e i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s o f l i f t - o f f a n d a s c e n t d e b r i s t o a d e g r e e unknown o n p r e v i o u s l a u n c h vehicles. T h i s r e s u l t s from t h e f a c t t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of t h e launch v e h i c l e , t h e o r b i t e r , a l s o s e r v e s as an e n t r y v e h i c l e and, as such, i s covered w i t h mechanically f r a g i l e thermal p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m (TPS) t i l e s . T h e s h u t t l e p r o g r a m r e c o g n i z e d t h i s s u s c e p t i b i l i t y e a r l y - o n and i n s t i t u t e d a program t o m i n i m i z e w h a t was f e l t to be t h e c h i e f l a u n c h d e b r i s t h r e a t , i c e f o r m a t i o n on t h e v e h i c l e ' s e x t e r n a l t a n k (ET). T h i s e f f o r t was p u r s u e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r v i g o r o n t h e n o s e r e g i o n of t h e t a n k where a n a l y t i c t r a n s p o r t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d a d e f i n i t e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d e b r i s r e l e a s e d i n a s c e n t would s t r i k e t h e o r b i t e r w i n d o w s a n d TPS t i l e s . T h e p r i n c i p a l i c e SOU KC^ o n t h e n o s e was e l i m i n a t e d by c o v e r i n g t h e t a n k v e n t l o u v e r s i n t h e n o s e c a p w i t h a f a c i l i t y v e n t h o o d , a " b e a n i e c a p , " t o d u c t away t h e c o l d v e n t v a p o r s . The hood i s r e t r a c t e d two m i n u t e s b e f o r e l a u n c h t o m i n i m i z e i c e a n d f r o s t buildup. A n a l y t i c t r a n s p o r t s t u d i e s . of t h e t a n k b a r r e l s e c t i o n w e r e i n c o n c l u s i v e , b u t c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t was e x p e n d e d by t h e ET p r o j e c t t o m i n i m i z e i c e f o r m a t i o n on t h e t a n k l i n e s a n d p r o t u b e r a n c e s . T h e f i r s t s h u t t l e f l i g h t , STS-1, was f l o w n w i t h t h i s "minimum i c e " c o n f i g u r a t i o n , a l t h o u g h s o m e w h a t m o r e i c e t h a n a n t i c i p a t e d was l o c a t e d o n t h e n o s e c a p v e n t l o u v e r s due t o a f a i l u r e of t h e " b e a n i e c a p " d o c k seals. F o l l o w i n g t h e f l i g h t , o r b i t e r TPS damage w a s f o u n d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r m s o f b o t h t h e n u m b e r of d e b r i s i m p a c t s ( h u n d r e d s ) To a n d i n t e r m s o f t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e l a r g e s t damage s i t e s .
159

investigate the sources of STS-1 debris damage and to make recommendations to reduce damage on future flights, the Shuttle Program Manager established a Debris Assessment Team headed by the Johnson Space Center (JSC), with members from J S C , the Marshall Space Flight Center, the Kennedy Space Center, Rockwell International Corp., and the Martin Marietta C o . This paper will address the approach used by this team to assess debris sources and debris-related TPS damage, will present conclusions resulting from the team's effort, and will summarize vehicle and launch pad modifications undertaken to minimize damaging debris.
APPROACH

Methods available for identification of debris sources fall into three major categories: pre- and post-flight inspections of the launch pad and vehicle, analytic treatment o f transport and impact damage phenomena, and. analysis of flight film and crew voice records. Prelaunch inspections of the vehicle and pad are conducted to document the system configuration and to identify changes implemented since the previous flight. The final pre-launch inspection is conducted approximately two hours before launch, after the external tank has been filled, for the purpose of documenting iceffrost formations and tank insulation anomalies (if any). The principal ice/frost formations, to date, have been found on the ET feedline and protuberances and in the orbiter umbilical area. After launch, the pad is inspected after it has been safed (launch + 3 hours) to identify facility damage which may have produced debris. The pad grounds are searched for evidence of this debris as well as for evidence of vehicle damage which may have been sustained at launch. This inspection produced the first evidence on STS-3 that tiles had been lost at lift-off as several fragments were found on the pad apron. The SRB'S are inspected for possible debris sources immediately upon their removal from the water after being towed to port. L o s s of insulation from the nose frustrums has been the only debris source of concern identified on the SRB. The orbiter is inspected after it has been placed in the Mate-Demate Device a t the landing site. Detailed maps of tile damage are made and the most significant damage sites are photographed and measured. The most significant concentrations of damage have been found on the upper nose surface and around the windows, on the right-hand wing chine and inboard wing and elevon underside, around the umbilical wells, on the body flap underside, and on the base between the engines. Samples of material imbedded in tiles and window wipes are taken for later chemical analysis. Two areas of analytical effort have been useful in understanding the debris source and damage data obtained from these inspections. Transport studies were undertaken for the nose and barrel sections of the ET to identify probable debris impact locations on the orbiter. The results of ET nose transport studies have shown that debris striking the orbiter upper nose surface and around the windows must have originated ahead of ET station 5 0 0 . ET barrel transport studies
160

*

have indicated that it is unlikely that debris originating on the ET barrel will strike the orbiter as the result of inter-vehicle pressure gradients. Debris from the barrel which does strike the orbiter must, therefore, do s o as the result of other localized effects ( S R B bow wave impingement, ET drag strut upflow). Impact studies were undertaken to identify incident energy thresholds corresponding to tile coating cracking for various debris materials. These studies have shown that the ET acreage foam insulation, with a density of about 2 lblcu. ft., will not damage tiles under any but the most severe impact conditions. The ET nosecap insulation, at 19 lb/cu. ft., will damage the tiles over a wide range of impact conditions. Impact studies also indicated that high velocity ice impacts on the orbiter windows were sufficient to cause catastrophic damage. Review of the flight film and crew voice records has been very useful in establishing a correlation between debris sources and vehicle damage. Film from cameras in the immediate vicinity o f the launch pad has identified the ablative insulation applied to t h e hold-down posts as a prime source of severe vehicle damage. These films have also aided in the definition of pad flow phenomena which direct debris objects back tovard the orbiter. On-board films of SRB and ET separation taken from the orbiter umbilical wells have aided in establishing debris sources on both vehicles. Much of the ice on the ET lines and protuberances survives ascent intact without becoming debris. On several flights large pieces of air-load reduction ramps on the ET have been lost in flight. All flight crews have reported seeing a large quantity of debris throughout ascent, much of it striking the windows. All of i t has been reported a s being white in color. STS-1 AND S T S - 2 DEBRIS EXPERIENCE

I
Debris

TPS Damage Due to Debris
d a m a g e to the orbiter TPS tiles o n STS-1 w a s s i g n i f i c a n t

in terms of both the number of debris impacts (hundreds) and in terms of the severity of the largest damage sites. The most alarming damage was located on the right-hand nose gear door and consisted of a gouge approximately 1 2 inches long and 1 inch deep in several damageresistant, high density TPS tiles (figures 1 and 2 ) . Severe damage was also inflicted on a low density tile on the underside of the body flap (figures 3 and 4); this damage site was enlarged significantly by melting of the tile substrate material during entry. Extensive, though less severe, damage was observed on the right-hand inboard elevon near the hinge line (figure 5 ) ; approximately 2 5 s q . in. of tile coating was removed by an impact with very little loss of depth. These large damage sites were very atypical. The average impact damage size wa8 less than 118 inch and exhibited no depth other than that associated with loss of the tile coating. This type of damage was particularly evident on the n o e e upper surface and right-hand side.

161

A l t h o u g h no s e v e r e damage w a s s u s t a i n e d on t h e o r b i t e r n o s e , S T S - 2 e x p e r i e n c e d d e b r i s d a m a g e w h i c h w a s s i m i l a r t o STS-1. Damage t o t h e body f l a p w a s s i g n i f i c a n t and e x h i b i t e d t h e s u b s t r a t e m e l t i n g as before. The number of damage s i t e s w a s r o u g h l y c o m p a r a b l e t o STS-1. T h e o n l y a r e a w h i c h was d a m a g e d i n a d i f f e r e n t f a s h i o n w a s t h e b a s e t i l e a r r a y between t h e t h r e e main e n g i n e s ( f i g u r e 6 ) . A number of s m a l l d a m a g e s i t e s w e r e p r e s e n t a s o n STS-1 b u t , i n a d d i t i o n , o n S T S - 2 t h e r e was a l o n g s c r a p e o r c o m p r e s s i o n w h i c h damaged s e v e n a d j a c e n t tiles. A s u m m a r y o f t h e l o c a t i o n s o f n o t e w o r t h y TPS d a m a g e d u e t o d e b r i s on f l i g h t s STS-1 a n d STS-2 i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 7 a n d 8 . The r o l e o f e n t r y h e a t i n g i n m o d i f y i n g i m p a c t damage c h a r a c teristics can be dramatic. As n o t e d a b o v e , t h i s e f f e c t h a s b e e n Figure 9 o b s e r v e d on b o t h STS-1 a n d STS-2 a t b o d y f l a p damage s i t e s . p r e s e n t s a summary o f T P S t i l e s e n s i t i v i t y t o damage i n c u r r e d b e f o r e entry. F l i g h t a n d a r c - j e t e x p e r i e n c e h a s r e v e a l e d t h a t on r e g i o n s o f t h e v e h i c l e where s u r f a c e t e m p e r a t u r e s exceed a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2200°F ( f i g u r e 10) s i g n i f i c a n t g r o w t h o f l a r g e r d a m a g e s i t e s c a n b e e x p e c t e d due t o s h r i n k a g e of t h e s u b s t r a t e s i l i c o n matrix. This knowledge i s u s e f u l i n b o t h r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e o r i g i n a l daniige, w h i c h a i d s i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e damage s o u r c e , a n d i n a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e consequences of damage. Body f l a p t e m p e r a t u r e s o n S T S - 1 a n d S T S - 2 were relatively l o w (2300OF) compared t o their d e s i g n v a l u e s ( 2 5 0 0 O F ) . T h i s w a s f o r t u n a t e i n t h a t t h e h i g h e r t e m p e r a t u r e s may w e l l h a v e S h r i n k a g e of t h e S T S - 1 n o s e g e a r d o o r r e s u l t e d i n a burn-through. t i l e damage was m i n i m a l b e c a u s e o f the h i g h e r d e n s i t y o f t h e tiles, e v e n t h o u g h t h e t e m p e r a t u r e s were a l s o h i g h e r ( 2 4 0 0 ' F ) .

Debris Sources Three p o t e n t i a l sources of t h e d e b r i s causing the nose gear door t i l e damage ( f i g u r e 2 ) w e r e h y p o t h e s i z e d . The f i r s t , a n d n o s t l i k e l y , w a s t h a t a s e c t i o n o f t h e ET l i g h t n i n g b a n d h a d d i s l o d g e d a n d b e e n transported t o the orbiter. The l i g h t n i n g band c o n s i s t s of a graphite-loaded epoxy m a t e r i a l which i s a p p l i e d on t h e e x t e r n a l s u r f a c e of t he tank i n s u l a t i o n i n a s t r i p about 6 inches wide; it can b e s e e n c i r c l i n g t h e t a n k n o s e i n f i g u r e 11. P h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n o f t h e ET i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r i t s s e p a r a t i o n f r o m t h e o r b i t e r r e v e a l e d t h a t l a r g e s e c t i o n s of the band were missing. A t a d e n s i t y of o v e r 100 I b / c u . f t . , t h e l i g h t n i n g band material c e r t a i n l y would have caused Another p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t t i l e damage on i m p a c t . AS was m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h e f a c i l i t y damage w a s i c e on t h e ET n o s e . " b e a n i e c a p " f a i l u r e r e s u l t e d i n t h e f o r m a t i o n of i c e o n t h e ET l i q u i d o x y g e n ( L O X ) dump v e n t l o u v e r s ; f i g u r e 1 2 s h o w s a t y p i c a l b u i l d - u p T h e s e l o u v e r s a r e w i t h i n 1 0 ' o f Lhe observed during a tanking test. ET l a t e r a l p l a n e , t h o u g h , s o t h a t t r a n s p o r t t o t h e o r b i t e r i s u n l i k e l y . S e v e r a l thermal s h o r t s which produced f r o s t b a l l s a t t h e nosecap/ i n s u l a t i o n i n t e r f a c e ( t h e forward l i g h t n i n g band) can a l s o be seen i n f i g u r e 12. T h i s f r o s t c e r t a i n l y would have been t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e o r b i t e r ( t o t h e r i g h t b u t n o t shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 ) b u t p r o b a b l y would n o t have had t h e d e n s i t y r e q u i r e d from t h e unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e

162

damage. A s c a n b e s e e n i n f i g u r e 2 , t h e damage had a V - s h a p e d c r o s s s e c t i o n which i s m a i n t a i n e d a l o n g i t s e n t i r e l e n g t h . Near t h e end of i t s c o u r s e , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e c r o s s s e c t i o n t o m o d e r a t e a s damage Because t h i s d i d not i n f l i c t e d o n t h e d e b r i s by t h e t i l e i n c r e a s e d . happzn t h e d e b r i s would a p p e a r t o have been v e r y h a r d w i t h a s q u a r e Some p r o b l e m s h a d b e e n e x p e r i e n c e d i n t a n k c o r n e r t o f o r m t h e "V." o p e r a t i o n s w i t h t h e r e t e n t i o n of p h e n o l i c s p a c e r b l o c k s i n t h e c a b l e t r a y r u n n i n g up t h e r i g h t - h a n d s i d e o f t h e ET n o s e ( f i g u r e 1 1 ) . Although no p r o o f e x i s t s t h a t any b l o c k s were l o s t , t h e y m u s t a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d a c a n d i d a t e f o r c a u s i n g t h i s damage. The s e v e r e d a m a g e t o t h e b o d y f l a p ( f i g u r e 4 ) was c o n c l u s i v e l y show:i t o h a v e b e e n t h e r e s u l t o f i m p a c t s by a n a b l a t i v e i n s u l a t i o n S i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t s of t h i s a p p l i e d t o t h e pad S R B hold-down p o s t s . i n s u l a t i o n were o b s e r v e d i n l a u n c h f i l m s t o b e r e l e a s e d i n t h e f i r s t few s e c o n d s a f t e r S R B i g n i t i o n . The l o s s o f t h i s m a t e r i a l c a n be T h e n o r t h p o s t s , t h o s e on t h e l e f t , e x p e r i e n c e o b s e : t v e d i n f i g u r e 13. a much m o r e s e v e r e e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n do t h e s o u t h p o s t s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e o v e r f l o w n by t h e v e r y a b r a s i v e S R B e x h a u s t p l u m e s a s t h e v e h i c l e heads i n i t i a l l y n o r t h . The s o u t h p o s t s , f o r a l l e x t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , r e p r e s e n t t h e p r e - i g n i t i o n c o n f i g u r a t i o n of i n s u l a t i o n on t h e n o r t h posts. S e v e r a l f i l m s r e v e a l e d t h a t p i e c e s of t h i s m a t e r i a l were c a u g h t i n plume f l o w r e f l e c t e d upward f r o m t h e t o p o f t h e s t r u c t u r e s u p p o r t i n g t h e p o s t s and i m p a c t e d t h e o r b i t e r body f l a p and a f t fuselage. The c a l c u l a t e d i m p a c t v e l o c i t y was 1 0 0 f p s ; t h e d e n s i t y o f t h e m a t e r i a l i s over 100 l b / c u . f t . The damage a r e a o n t h e i n b o a r d e l e v o n ( f i g u r e 5 ) was p r o b a b l y t h e r e s u : l t of a n i m p a c t by a l a r g e p i e c e o f E T i n s u l a t i o n s i n c e i t exhibited l i t t l e depth. The damage m e c h a n i s m i n v o l v e d o n l y t h e shat'Eering of t h e t i l e c o a t i n g . Many o f t h e s m a l l t i l e d a m a g e s i t e s were a l s o a r e s u l t o f ET i n s u l a t i o n i m p a c t s ; o n - o r b i t p h o t o s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e i n s u l a t i o n s u r f a c e c o n t a i n e d many i n c h - s i z e d i v o t s . Several l a r g e p i e c e s of i n s u l a t i o n (1-2 f e e t ) were o b s e r v e d t o be m i s s i n g f r o m l o a d a l l e v i a t i o n ramps i n p r o x i m i t y t o e x t e r n a l l i n e s .
T h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e damage w a s caused by
ice released
from
the

ET f e e d l i n e a n d a n t i - g e y s e r

l i n e w h i c h r u n down t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e

t a n k ( f i g u r e 11). T h i s i c e , which is produced a t exposed c o l d - p o i n t s a l o n g t h e l i n e s , was a n t i c i p a t e d a n d w a i v e d a s a c c e p t a b l e p r i o r t o flight. T y p i c a l damage r e s u l t i n g f r o m i c e c o n s i s t e d of l o n g , s h a l l o w g r o o v e s w h i c h w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d f r o m h i g h v e l o c i t y , low a n g l e i m p a c t s ( f i g u r e 5). M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o Reduce D e b r i s Following STS-1, s e v e r a l s t e p s were t a k e n t o r e d u c e t h e d e b r i s hazards discussed above. The l i g h t n i n g b a n d s w h i c h had b e e n i n s t a l l e d o n t h e E T w e r e r e m o v e d f o r STS-2 a n d a l l s u b s e q u e n t v e h i c l e s p e n d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a m a t e r i a l w h i c h w o u l d n o t g e n e r a t e d e b r i s ( f i g u r e 14). T h e dock s e a l s o n t h e f a c i l i t y " b e a n i e c a p " w e r e m o d i f i e d t o e l i m i n a t e l e a k s a n d p r e v e n t i c e f o r m a t i o n on t h e v e n t l o u v e r s ( f i g u r e 14). A l t h o u g h n o d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f l o s s e x i s t e d , p r o v i s i o n s w e r e
163

made i n t h e ET c a b l e t r a y d e s i g n t o p h y s i c a l l y c o n s t r a i n t h e p h e n o l i c spacer blocks. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e changes, updated aerodynamic load a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t some o f t h e i n s u l a t i o n u s e d i n l o a d a l l e v i a t i o n ramps c o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . About 7 0 r u n n i n g f e e t of t h e s e ramps w e r e removed from t h e hydrogen t a n k . D e b r i s e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d f r o m STS-2 r e s u l t e d i n s e v e r a l c h a n g e s t o t h e l a u n c h pad. T h e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e was t h e r e m o v a l o f a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e S R B hold-down p o s t a b l a t i v e i n s u l a t i o n ; m a t e r i a l was r e t a i n e d o n t h e b a s e o f t h e p o s t s b u t was s t r i p p e d f r o m other areas. An a t t e m p t w a s a l s o made t o i m p r o v e t h e p r o c e d u r e by which t h e m a t e r i a l w a s bonded t o t h e p o s t t o a s s u r e i t s r e t e n t i o n . D u r i n g s e v e r a l i n s p e c t i o n s t h e d e b r i s t e a m f o u n d e v i d e n c e of l o o s e m a t e r i a l on t h e l a u n c h p l a t f o r m i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e l a u n c h . Detailed i n s p e c t i o n and c l e a n - u p p r o c e d u r e s were i n i t i a t e d t o a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem. On t h e e x t e r n a l t a n k , t h e r m a l s h o r t s w h i c h h a d e x i s t e d a t t h e n o s e c a p / i n s u l a t i o n i n t e r f a c e were e l i m i n a t e d t o p r e c l u d e t h e f o r m a t i o n of f r o s t b a l l s . Two d e b r i s - p r o d u c i n g a g e n t s o n t h e o r b i t e r o n STS-2 w e r e a l s o e l i m i n a t e d . A more s e c u r e method of. r e t a i n i n g o r b i t e r u m b i l i c a l w e l l b a g g i e f r a g m e n t s was f o u n d t o p r e v e n t t h e s e f r a g m e n t s from damaging t i l e s immediately behind t h e u m b i l i c a l w e l l o p e n i n g on t h e u n d e r s i d e . I n addition, tire pressure monitoring wires w h i c h s e v e r on l a n d i n g a t t i r e s p i n - u p w e r e p r o v i d e d w i t h q u i c k d i s e n g a g e c o n n e c t o r s t o p r e v e n t t h e w i r e s f r o m b e i n g t h r o w n u p into underside t i l e s .

STS-3 DEBRIS E X P E R I E N C E
t h e v e h i c l e and pad m o d i f i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , The number o f d e b r i s d a m a g e s i t e s , t h o u g h , w a s c o m p a r a b l e t o t h o s e o n STS-1 a n d STS-2. T h e o n l y new d a m a g e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w a s o b s e r v e d o n t h e o r b i t e r u p p e r n o s e s u r f a c e ( f i g u r e 1 5 ) a n d a r o u n d t h e windows ( f i g u r e 1 6 ) . I n t h i s a r e a s i x l a r g e s h a l l o w g o u g e s a b o u t 1 i n c h w i d e and 4 i n c h e s l o n g were f o u n d on t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e . One g o u g e o f t h i s t y p e was No c o n n e c t i o n c o u l d be found between f o u n d i n t h i s a r e a on STS-1. t h i s i m p a c t d a m a g e a n d t h e l o s s o f a number o f t i l e s f r o m t h e u.pper nose surface. T h e t i l e l o s s , w h i c h was c a u s e d b y b o n d l i n e f a i l u r e s , d i d r e s u l t , h o w e v e r , i n some i m p a c t damage a r o u n d t h e w i n d o w s .
A s a r e s u l t of

no h a z a r d o u s d e b r i s damage was e x p e r i e n c e d on STS-3.

The damage t o t h e n o s e u p p e r s u r f a c e was p a r t i c u l a r l y e n i g m a t i c b e c a u s e t r a n s p o r t s t u d i e s s h o w e d t h a t t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e s o u r c e was t h e f o r w a r d p o r t i o n of t h e E T n o s e . On t h e E T n o s e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e no p r o t u b e r a n c e s on t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e t o . s e r v e a s d e b r i s g e n e r a t o r s . It was f i n a l l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m o s t p r o b a b l e s o u r c e was a n a r e a o f h a n d - p a c k e d i n s u l a t i o n o n t h e n o s e c a p w h i c h h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d bond p r o b l e m s d u r i n g ET b u i l d - u p o p e r a t i o n s . The d e n s i t y of t h i s h a n d - p a c k ( 2 0 l b / c u . f t . ) i s more t h a n a d e q u a t e t o h a v e c a u s e d t h e o b s e r v e d damage. STS-3, f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , a f f o r d e d a g o o d o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s e s s t h e e x t e n t o f i c e s o u r c e s on t h e ET p r o t u b e r a n c e s b e c a u s e t h e i n s u l a t i o n was no l o n g e r p a i n t e d w h i t e b u t a l l o w e d t o r e t a i n i t s

164

natural brown color. Figure 17 shows the ice formations on the antigeyser line rainshields and the LOX feedline brackets and line bellows. Although much of this ice remains in place throughout ascent, a significant portion is dislodged and impacts the orbiter nose and wing chine (because of S R B bow wave impingement) and the wing and elevon (because of upflow at the aft orbiter/ET attachments). A debris source noted on STS-3 continued to be the hold-down posts. The pre- and postlaunch configurations of post M-3 are shown i n figures 18 and 19, respectively. Large amounts of insulation were again lost from the base although, fortunately, no vehicle impacts were observed. Also missing after launch were the box covers placed over the tops of the post struts. These were found at great distances from the pad. For the first time a significant debris source was noted on the SRB’s in that large sections of nose frustrum insulation were missing upon recovery. No specific tile damage sites could be attributed to this debris, however. Several modifications to the vehicle and pad were undertaken to eliminate these debris sources. On the external tank, a small thermal short which formed a button of ice on a line mount at the ET nosecap was foamed over. Efforts were again made to reduce the amount of insulation on the hold-down posts and to improve application techniques to assure retention of the material during launch. In addition, some insulation was added to the tops of the post strut covers to protect the bolts holding them in place. On the SRB, the frustrum insulation application technique was revised t o prevent material debond. STS-4 DEBRIS EXPERIENCE Debris damage to TPS tiles on STS-4 was roughly comparable to that on STS-3 in terms of number of impacts. STS-4 did not experience significant damage on the left-hand side of the nose and the damage on the upper nose was less severe. There were, however, several large damage sites on the right-hand underside of the vehicle (figure 2 0 ) . A gouge about 9 inches long and 2 inches wide was induced on the right side wing chine by the impact of a fairly large object (figure 21). A series of scrapes was formed on the aft wing and inboard elevon underside by the high velocity, low angle impact of a number of objects (figure 22). Several of the scrapes line up and indicate that the major dimension of the impacting debris was about 1 inch. Sources of damaging debris were similar to those encountered on previous flights. The gouge on the right-hand wing chine was caused by a piece of ET insulation about 18 inches long which was l o s t during ascent from a load alleviation ramp on the hydrogen tank (figure 2 3 ) . Several such pieces were lost and may also account for the damage to the wing and inboard elevon. Another candidate for the wing damage is ice from the anti-geyser line. Most of this ice, however, as seen in figure 23, has been retained to orbit insertion. Ice observed on acreage areas of the insulation in this photo is air ice produced by foam venting in second stage flight; it is not believed to represent a
165

debris hazard. The hold-down posts continued to generate debris but, fortunately, none of the material hit the orbiter. Figures 24 and 25 present a pre- and post-launch view of north post M-7. Note that substantial amounts of the white insulation material are missing in figure 2 5 from the post base. One such piece (figure 2 6 ) was observed on film moving up out of the flame hole but away from the orbiter at approximately 1 second after ignition when the vehicle had risen about 5 feet. Figure 2 5 shows a clear view o f the post support structure and the flat top plate which deflects S R B plume flow, and debris, upward toward the vehicle. The post strut covers survived launch intact due to the application of insulation over their placement bolts (figure 24) but many were loose and could be lifted off without resistance. Two modifications were made to the pad as a result of STS-4 debris experience. Hold-down post insulation was reduced to minimal levels. The insulation which was packed at the post base was replaced with a steel belly band and that on the base webs vas eliminated. The strut covers were modified to accept internally penetrating bolts and were faired s o as to lower the incident flow heating induced as the S R B plumes passed overhead. An important change was made to the ET
following STS-4 i n t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e o f i c e on t h e l a u n c h

vehicle, the anti-geyser line, was eliminated. Studies had shown that propellant geysering would not o c c u r in its absence, s o it was removed to reduce ET weight and eliminate an important debris source. STS-5 DEBRIS EXPERIENCE The damage patterns established on STS-5 are important because they reflect representative damage for future flights unless additional modifications are made to reduce debris sources. STS-5 was also important because it allowed five flights worth of tile damage to be viewed simultaneously in that the gray tile repairs are easily visible. The most extensive damage was experisenced on the right-hand lower side of the nose (figure 2 7 ) . Those damage repairs seen in this figure which are essentially circular are associated with hail damage experienced by the vehicle on the pad immediately prior to S T S - 4 . New debris damage sites are easily visible, though, as are many repaired debris impact streaks. An area that exhibited substantially less debris damage on STS-5 was the right wing and onboard elevon underside. This can be attributed directly to the removal o f the ET anti-geyser line and its associated ice (compare figure 2 8 to figure 17). All other debris damage was representative of that experienced on previous flights. The debris damaging the orbiter right-hand nose was ET insulation from either the intertanklupper hydrogen tank areas o r from the nose of the L O X tank. Intertank debris is transported t o this region by flow resulting from impingement of the S R B bow shock on the ET. Nose debris receives sufficient momentum to cross streamlines and reach the orbiter as the result of being accelerated over the ogive o f the LOX tank. No significant insulation degradation on the ET can be observed

@

i n t h e s e a r e a s ( f i g u r e 29) which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e maximum d e b r i s d i m e n s i o n as i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e damage i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 inch. Pad d e b r i s c a n n o t b e shown t o h a v e p r o d u c e d a n y t i l e d a m a g e o n STS-5. The a m o u n t o f h o l d - d o w n p o s t i n s u l a t i o n a p p l i e d f o r t h i s f l i g h t was g r e a t l y r e d u c e d a n d was p l a c e d i n a n a r e a w h e r e t h e m a j o r i t y o f i t w o u l d b e p h y s i c a l l y r e t a i n e d ( f i g u r e 30). Post-flight i n s p e c t i o n , h o w e v e r , r e v e a l e d t h a t s e v e r a l i n c h - s i z e d p i e c e s were l o s t during launch. The m a j o r pad d e b r i s s o u r c e w h i c h r e m a i n s u n r e s o l v e d i s t h e hold-down s h o e s h i m m a t e r i a l . The e p o x y - b a s e d s h i m i s p o u r e d a r o u n d t h e SRB s u p p o r t pads a f t e r t h e y have been i n s t a l l e d i n t h e s h o e ; t h e shim i s d e s i g n e d t o be r e t a i n e d f i r m l y i n t h e s h o e , b u t t h i s has not always occurred ( f i g u r e 3 1 ) . Because t h e shoe s e r v e s a s a s o u r c e of upward plume r e f l e c t i o n t h e shim m a t e r i a l h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l of i m p a c t i n g t h e o r b i t e r i f i t i s r e l e a s e d .
The o n l y m a j o r d e b r i s - r e d u c i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e v e h i c l e u n d e r t a k e n a f t e r STS-5 was a n i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e i n s u l a t i o n p l a c e d o v e r t h e t h e r m a l s h o r t o n a l i n e mount a t t h e E T n o s e c a p . This short h a d b e e n f o a m e d o v e r i n i t i a l l y f o r STS-4 b u t t h a t was n o t t o t a l l y A n e f f o r t h a s a l s o b e e n made e f f e c t i v e 'in p r e v e n t i n g i c e f o r m a t i o n . t o i m p r o v e t h e r e t e n t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e hold-down s h o e s h i m m a t e r i a l by i m p r o v i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e .

CONCLUDING REMARKS
F i g u r e 3 2 p r e s e n t s a summary o f t h e p r i n c i p a l o r b i t e r T P S t i l e d e b r i s damage r e g i o n s e x p e r i e n c e d o n e a c h o f t h e f i r s t f i v e s p a c e shuttle flighte. The o n l y p o t e n t i a l l y c a t a s t r o p h i c damage was e n c o u n t e r e d o n f l i g h t s STS-1 a n d STS-2 a s t h e r e s u l t o f ET l i g h t n i n g b a n d or c a b l e t r a y d e b r i s a n d p a d h o l d - d o w n p o s t i n s u l a t i o n d e b r i s . The e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e s e s o u r c e s a s w e l l a s t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e o f i c e on t h e l a u n c h v e h i c l e , t h e ET a n t i - g e y s e r l i n e , h a s r e s u l t e d i n a f a i r l y r e p e a t a b l e a n d w e l l u n d e r s t o o d d e b r i s damage p a t t e r n . STS-5 w a s t y p i c a l o f d e b r i s damage w h i c h c a n b e e x p e c t e d o n f u t u r e f l i g h t s u n l e s s s p a l l a t i o n of t h e E T i n s u l a t i o n c a n b e e l i m i n a t e d . Five f l i g h t i s w o r t h of r e p a i r e d d e b r i s damage c a n b e o b s e r v e d o n t h e l e f t h a n d s i d e of t h e o r b i t e r n o s e ( f i g u r e 3 3 ) w h e r e h a i l damage was Debris m i n i m a l a n d a r o u n d t h e r i g h t - h a n d u m b i l i c a l w e l l ( f i g u r e 34). moving n e a r t h e lower s u r f a c e of t h e v e h i c l e i s b r o u g h t i n t o i m p a c t w i t h t h e o r b i t e r j u s t f o r w a r d a n d o u t b o a r d o f t h e u m b i l i c a l wells b y upflow around t h e a f t o r b i t e r / E T a t t a c h s t r u c t u r e .

A summary o f p o t e n t i a l l y d a m a g i n g d e b r i s p r o d u c e d by t h e l a u n c h The d e b r i s i s c a t e g o r i z e d v e h i c l e and pad i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 3 5 . by i t s p o t e n t i a l d a m a g e s e v e r i t y w h i c h may o r may n o t c o i n c i d e w i t h damage which i t h a s a c t u a l l y c a u s e d t o d a t e . "Safety of f l i g h t " s e v e r i t y i s a s s i g n e d t o d e b r i s w h i c h p o t e n t i a l l y c o u l d damage t h e o r b i t e r w i n d o w s o r TPS t i l e s t o t h e p o i n t t h a t e i t h e r t h e m i s s i o n o r the vehicle was lost. A l l known " s a f e t y o f f l i g h t " d e b r i s s o u r c e s have been eliminated. " S i g n i f i c a n t " s e v e r i t y i s based on e i t h e r t h e F i g u r e 36 s u m m a r i z e s s t e p s t a k e n t o d a t e t o s i z e o r e x t e n t of damage. eliminate these sources.
167

F i g u r e 1.- Nose gear door tile damage ( S T S - 1 ) .

F i g u r e 2.-

Close-up of nose g e a r door t i l e damage (STS-1).

168

ORIm?lAL Pi?.CE f9
OF POOR QiJALlrV

Figure 3 . - Body f l a p tile damage ( S T S - 1 ) .

Figure 4.-

Close-up of body flap t i l e damage ( S T S - 1 ) .

169

F i g u r e 5. - Right-hand

inboard e l e v o n t i l e damage (STS-1)

.

ORIG4iUL PAGE ! § OF POOR QUALITY

Figure 6.-

Base h e a t s h i e l d t i l e damage (STS-2).

e

170

Figure 7.-

STS-1 and STS-2 right-side debris damage composite.

LOWER SURFACE OF ORBITER VIEWED FROM ABOVE *

WING
F i g u r e 8.- STS-1 and STS-2 lower surface debris damage composite.

171

T I 2000" - 2200 O F

T

1 2200" - 2500

OF

0

NO SHRINKAGE

0

MINOR SHRINKAGE

1 1 _
2 IN. LONG & SHALLOW

I
0

I

1

CAVITATION

CAVITATION POTENTIAL BURN-THRU

F i g u r e 9.-

TPS t i l e sensitivity t o d e b r i s damage.

2200°F
&2Z,0°F

2100°F

\z4uu0'

2000°F \

2000°F
2300°F

&??? '
2300°F

-

1

L'

2000°F '

2200°F

/

-----

STS-2 ISOTHERMS

F i q u r e 10.- Orbiter lower surface isotherms (STS-2).

172

Figure 11.- Launch v e h i c l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n (STS-1).

Figure 1 2

.- R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
configuration

ET v e n t l o u v e r i.ce (STS-1).

173

F i g u r e 13.- P o s t - l a u n c h pad damage ( S T S - 2 ) .

Figure 14.-

ET LOX t a n k a n d facility v e n t hood d u r i n q t a n k i n q (STS-2).

174

r d ,

*

Figure 1 5 . - O r b i t e r nose t i l e damage (STS-3).

a

--

Figure 1 6 . - Window p ? r i p h p r y t i l e damage ( S T S - 3 ) .

175

F i g u r e 1 7 . - ET f e e d l i n e and a n t i - g e y s e r ice a f t e r t a n k i n g (STS-3).

F i g u r e 18.- Hold-dowr. p o s t M-3 prior t o l a u n c h (STS-3).

176

0

Figure 19.- Hold-down p o s t M - 3

a f t e r l a u n c h (STS-3).

Figure 20.-

O r b i t e r underside t i l e damage (STS-4).

177

Figure 21.-

tile damage (STS-4)-

O r b i t e r r i g h t - h a n d wing c h i n e

F i g u r e 22.-

Right-hand wing and inboard elevon tile damage (STS-4).

178

lo

F i g u r e 23.- ET d u r i n q s e p a r a t i o n from the o r b i t e r ( S T S - 4 ) .

Figure 24.- Hold-down post M-7 prior to l a u n c h (STS-4).

179

F i g u r e 25.-

Hold-down post M-7

a f t e r launch (STS-4).

F i g u r e 26.-

Hold-down post i n s u l a t i o n fragment released from post M-7 ( S T S - 4 ) .
,-

180

id

-3

ORIGINAL PAGE 1 9 OF POOR QUALW

L.

- C I -

F i g u r e 27.-

Nose t i l e damage (STS-5).

F i g u r e 28.-

L i g h t w e i g h t tank p r o t u b e r a n c e c o n f i g u r a t i o n (STS-5)

.

18 1

Figure 29.- ET during separation from
the o r b i t e r ( S T S - 5 ) .

F i g u r e 30.- Hold-down post M-3 p r i o r to l a u n c h (STS-5)

.

182

03iC; OF P

F i g u r e 31.-

Hold-down p o s t shoe shim material a f t e r launch (STS-5).

PRINCIPAL DEBRIS DAMAGE REGIONS UPPER NOSE SURFACE AND AROUND WINDOWS RIGHT SIDE OF NOSE AND WING CHINE LEFT SIDE OF NOSE AND WING CHINE AROUND UMBILICAL WELLS RIGHT WING AND INBOARD ELEVON UNDERSIDES AFT FUSELAGE AND BODY FLAP UNDERSIDES
BASE

STS-1

4
d

STS-2 STS-3 STS-4 STS-5

i

v

d

d

d i

d

d
1

4 d d

i v ' d , ' d d d i d 4 d i d d

F i g u r e 32.-

O r b i t e r TPS d e b r i s damage summary.
183

Figure 33.- Repaired d e b r i s damage on o r b i t e r
nose t i l e s ( S T S - 5 ) .

Figure 34.-

Repaired d e b r i s damage at umbilical well (STS-5).

184

POTENTIAL DAMAGE SEVERITY

0R BITER ET

DEBRIS SOURCES

SAFETY OF FLIGHT

SIGNIFICANT

MINOR

-

TILE FRAGMENTS UMBILICAL H 2 0 ICE

TIRE STRAIN GAUGE WIRE UMBILICAL BAGGIE REMNANTS TILE SPACER SHIMS

LIGHTNING BANDS VENT LOUVER ICE LOX PRESS LINE MOUNT ICE NOSECAPIOGIVE INTERFACE ICE

NOSECAP SLA PAL RAMP FRAGMENTS FEEDLINE & A/G LINE ICE' SOFl FRAGMENTS

TUMBLE VALVE COVER

FRUSTRUM INSULATION STRUT BAGGIES' THROAT PLUG FRAGMENTS ETiSRB CONNECTOR PIECES' HOLD-DOWN POST RTV POST STRUT COVERS SHOE LINER MATERIAL WATER TROUGH FRAGMENTS

*WAIVED FROM NO DEBRIS REQUIREMENT AS ACCEPTABLE

Figure 35.- Debris source summary.

FOR STS-2 AND SUBS 0 ET LIGHTNING BANDS REMOVED 0 ET CABLE TRAY PHENOLIC SPACERS REDESIGNED TO ASSURE RETENTION 0 FACILITY BEANIE - CAP MODIFIED TO PREVENT ICE O N ET VENT LOUVERS LH2 PRESS LINE LOAD ALLEVIATION RAMPS REMOVED

FOR STS-3 AND SUBS
0

USE OF HOLD-DOWN POST ABLATIVE INSULATION DRASTICALLY REDUCED THERMAL SHORTS FORMING ICE AT ET NOSECAP/OGIVE INTERFACE ELIMINATED 0 ORBITER UMBILICAL BAGGIES RETAINED BY CLIPS RATHER THAN DRAWSTRING e TIRE PRESSURE STRAIN GAUGE WIRES MODIFIED TO ASSURE CLEAN RELEASE A T SPIN-UP RIGOROUS PAD CLEAN-UP PROCEDURE INSTITUTED
0

0 FOR STS-4 AND SUBS 0 THERMAL SHORT O N LOX PRESSURIZATION LINE MOUNT FOAMED OVER SRB FRUSTRUM INSULATION APPLICATION TECHNIQUE REVISED TO PREVENT SPALLATION
0 FOR STS-5 AND SUBS

0

HOLD-DOWN POST STRUT COVERS MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE EXPOSED BOLTS T O ASSURE RETENTION HOLD-DOWN POST RTV INSULATION MINIMIZED ET ANTI-GEYSER LINE REMOVED

0 FOR STS-6 AND SUBS THERMAL SHORT O N LOX PRESSURIZATION LINE MOUNT FOAMED OVER

Figure 36.- Summary of modifications to reduce debris.

185

A S C E N T AIR DATA SYSTEM RESULTS FROM THE SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT TEST P R O G R A M Ernest R. Hillje and Raymond L. Nelson NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, T e x a s SUMMARY The ascent air data system of the Space Shuttle consists o f a simple biconic spike probe on the nose of the external tank. Pressure measurements were calibrated in a wind tunnel to obtain vehicle attitude and speed (relative to the air) and dynamic pressure. T h e wind tunnel test data analysis and the calibration are discussed in terms of test problems and calibration parameter formulation. The flight pressures a r e traced from telemetry data to final air d a t a products. Analysis of the flight results showed that static pressure could not be accurately determined at the higher Mach numbers (above x 2 . 0 : ) . By replacing static pressure with data from a postflight estimated trajectory the ascent a i r data system performance met the user requirements. Lessons learned are enumerated, the most import.ant being the need for a thorough systems integration effort. INTRODUCTION The Space Shuttle vehicle is the major space transportation system that will carry payloads to low Earth orbit. During the ascent phascj o f each mission, t h e , v e h i c l e is subjected to its highest aerodynamic loading; it also encounters critical localized aerothermodynamic heating. T o perform postflight assessments of the
s t r u c t u r a l a n d heating c o n d i t i o n s as w e l l a s

the r e l a t e d a e r o d y n a m i c

characteristics and performance, analysts need to know t h e vehicle's a t t i t u d e and environment (see t a b l e s I and II). T h e s e assessments w i l l , in t u r n , allow expansion of the flight envelope during the orbital flight test (OFT) series. Obtaining this data for the postflight analyses is the purpose of the ascent air data system (AADS). The AADS consists of a 3 O o / 1 O 0 biconic s p i k e , or probe, mounted o n the tip of the external tank (ET). Located o n the spike are five pressure ports that are sensitive to pitch .and y a w attitude, total pressure, and static pressure. F o r the Space Shuttle OFT series, data w e r e obtained and used in conjunction with wind tunnel calibrations to determine the vehicle angle of attack, angle of sideslip, static pressure, and total pressure. T h e last two terms were then used to calculate the vehicle Mach number and dynamic pressure. T h e wind ,tunnel calibrations span the Mach number range 0 . 5 to 4 . 6 3 , the region of most interest t o postflight system analysts b e c a u s e it contains
187

d r , c .,-

.;;.:ir

s $ : t

>: Preceding page blank

'

m a x i m u m dynamic p r e s s u r e as w e l l as t r a n s o n i c flow. I n i t i a l r e s u l t s f r o m ' t h e A A D S w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h r e c o n s t r u c t e d trajectory ( d i g i t a l s i m u l a t i o n ) data. L a t e r , c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e m a d e w i t h a "best e s t i m a t e t r a j e c t o r y " (BET), w h i c h w a s a l s o u s e d to s u p p l e m e n t the A A D S r e s u l t s . T h e o b j e c t i v e of t h i s p a p e r i s t o d e s c r i b e the A A D S h a r d w a r e , t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a a n a l y s i s , t h e c a l i b r a t i o n f o r m u l a t i o n , the postf l i g h t data p r o c e s s i n g , a n d t o a s s e s s the f l i g h t results. NOMENCLATURE S y m b o l s and A b b r e v i a t i o n s

M P PAVE P B , 'BOTTOM
pL, 'LEFT
P R , 'RIGHT

Mach number A m b i e n t , or free-stream, p r e s s u r e A v e r a g e d b o t t o m and u p p e r p r e s s u r e s . ~ o t t o mo r i f i c e p r e s s u r e (or Z p o r t ) L e f t orif ice p r e s s u r e R i g h t orifice pressure Static pressure Total orifice pressure Upper orifice pressure Dynamic pressure A n g l e of a t t a c k ( p i t c h ) A n g l e of s i d e s l i p ( y a w ) D i f f e r e n t i a l p i t c h p r e s s u r e , P B O T T O H - 'UPPER D i f f e r e n t i a l y a w p r e s s u r e , PRIGHT 'LEFT Static pressure calibration parameter, or decrement Normal force coefficient Pitching moment coefficient Total pressure calibration parameter, or decrement A n g l e of a t t a c k ( a ) c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t A n g l e of s i d e s l i p ( B ) c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t Mach calibration coefficient T o t a l p r e s s u r e a h e a d of s h o c k Total pressure behind shock S l o p e c a l i b r a t i o n p a r a m e t e r f o r a n g l e of a t t a c k S l o p e c a l i b r a t i o n p a r a m e t e r f o r a n g l e of s i d e s l i p R a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t e Longitudinal axis Incremental quantity

PS

'* *
"9

'PITOT

'UPPER

9
ct

B
AP c1
Ahp B

CPSD m '

CPTD
CPct, C P A CPB, C P B CPM PT 1 PT2 CPASL CPBSL

Y
X

A

188

I '
Subscripts
m

WT F LT SLOPE INT
PROX MSL

Free-stream Wind tunnel related data Flight data Calibration parameter slope term Calibration parameter intercept term Orbiter proximity effect on angle of attack Misalignment Abbreviations

AAD S ET NASA SRB

WT
OFT

BET
PS BET STS-N STA WIG TU

T QL
CCT C DC

RI
MMC J SC MSFC STD S TS

MSID
FTS

SSME NAV

Ascent Air Data System External Tank National Aeronautics and Space Administration Solid rocket booster Wind tunnel Orbital flight test Best estimate trajectory BET static pressure override data Nth orbital flight of the Space Transportation System Longitudinal station on the external tank Whichever is greater T e 1erne t ry Time Quick-look (data) Computer compatible tape Control Data Corporation Rockwell International Martin Marietta Company Johnson Space Center Marshall Space Flight Center Standard Space Transportation System Measurement stimulus ID Federal Telecommunication System Space Shuttle main engine
Navigation

SIM

Simulated (trajectory d a t a ) ASCENT AIR DATA SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

I n early 1 9 7 5 , technical integration managers saw that accurate definition of the launch vehicle attitude and of certain air data parameters during the ascent phase of flight waB needed for postflight evaluation of the structural, heating, and aerodynamic performance of the Space Shuttle. Several early configurations of the ascent air data system were considered', and in late 1 9 7 7 a 3Oo/1O0 biconic configuration, shown in figure 1 , was recommended and accepted. This

189

biconic spike is mounted on a 40' nose cone that mates to the ET ogive. The AADS spike also serves as a lightning rod. Details of the AADS spike are shown in figures 2 and 3 . The AADS spike is attached to the forward t i p of the ET. Five pressure orifices are located on the 3' conical section of the AADS spike as 0

0 shown. Four pressure transducers are housed in the 4' conic section of the tank nose cap and are used to sense the orifice pressures. The pitot (PT) orifice pressure (the indicator of total pressure) and the bottom ( P B ) orifice pressure are read by absolute pressure transducers ( 0 to 15 psia). The differential pitch pressure (APa) and the differential yaw pressure ( A P B ) are read by differential pressure transducers ( + / - 2 psi). These flight pressure transducers are calibrated in a laboratory before ET assembly and check-calibrated before flight. The basic transducer calibrations are obtained at various environmental temperatures to provide accurate pressure measurements at temperatures typical for the pressure transducer housing during launch. In flight, a temperature sensor installed in the proximity of the pressure transducers will monitor the temperature 0 ' portion of the nose cap during ascent. environment within the 4
T h e AADS

spike is s u b j e c t t o t w o alignments.

The

first is

between the 3Oo/1O0 spike and the 4 0 ' nose cone. Mating procedures were developed using tapered shims between these two sections to accommodate manufacturing differences, thereby reducing alignment errors. The second alignment is performed after the assembled nose cone is mounted on top of the ET. A transit setup is used to determine the plane of a slice through a lower section of the ET. (The station 2 0 4 8 ring frame that contains the rear Orbiter attach point was used.) This plane is compared to a plane established at the spike using a clinometer and a special fixture that sits on the spike t i p and affords a horizontal surface. Because any misalignment at this point is not adjustable, the measurements are recorded and used a s a bias adjustment to the calculated pitch and yaw attitudes. WIND TUNNEL CALIBRATION Wind Tunnel Test Data Analysis There is much experimental d a t a on the flowfield around cones. There also exists theoretical data on this subject. Both of these sources of d a t a were used to evaluate the AADS configuration and to estimate attitude sensitivity levels. However, detailed pressure data for the Space Shuttle AADS must be obtained from wind tunnel testing, The proximity of the Orbiter and the two solid rocket boosters '(sRB's), and the cable tray fairing that extends along the ET all the way up to the AADS spike (resulting in an asymmetric configuration), cause disturbances in the local flow that must be accounted for. This

190

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n t h e i m p o r t a n t t r a n s o n i c f l i g h t regime where the vehicle loads a r e the greatest.
A w i n d t u n n e l t e s t s e r i e s was c o n d u c t e d t h a t c o v e r e d t h e Mach n u m b e r r e g i o n o f i n t e r e s t , f r o m Mach = 0 . 5 5 t o Mach = 4 . 6 3 , a s shown V e r i f i c a t i o n t e s t s were r u n , as "piggy-back" t e s t s t o i n t a b l e 111. a i r l o a d s t e s t i n g , u p t o Mach = 2 . 5 . For t h e AADS wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e , t h e b a s i c t e s t s e r i e s was c o n d u c t e d u s i n g a 7 p e r c e n t s c a l e f o r e b o d y model ( s e e f i g . 41, i n o r d e r t o a l l o w f o r a r e a s o n a b l e s i z e f o r t h e AADS s p i k e . A p r e v i o u s t e s t , u s i n g a 0.4 p e r c e n t m o d e l o f t h e l a u n c h c o n f i g u r a t i o n , was r u n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f t h e e l e m e n t s ( O r b i t e r a n d SRB's) on t h e AADS s p i k e measurements. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s t e s t showed no e f f e c t i n t h e y a w , o r s i d e s l i p , d i r e c t i o n ; t h e SRB left a n d r i g h t e l e m e n t s e v i d e n t l y c a n c e l e d e a c h o t h e r . In the p i t c h , or a n g l e o f a t t a c k , d i r e c t i o n t h e O r b i t e r c a u s e d t h e e f f e c t N o t e t h a t t h e e f f e c t i s a maximum a t Mach = 0 . 5 shown i n f i g u r e 5 . a n d d i s a p p e a r s a t Hach = 1 . 2 .

A p r o b l e m t h a t was e n c o u n t e r e d d u r i n g t h e c a l i b r a t i o n o f t h e O r b i t e r a i r d a t a s y s t e m w a s t h a t of t h e u n c e r t a i n t y o f t h e f a c i l i t y 2 t e s t conditions I n o r d e r t o circumvent t h i s p o t e n t i a l problem a f l i g h t t e s t p r o b e m o d e l ( s e e f i g . 4 ( c ) ) was u s e d a s a c a l i b r a t i o n s t a n d a r d t o compare w i t h b o t h t h e f a c i l i t y i n d i c a t e d t o t a l p r e s s u r e and t h e AADS measurement. S u b s o n i c a l l y t h e f a c i l i t y and t h e A A D S p i r e s s u r e s showed g o o d a g r e e m e n t . A t some o f t h e h i g h e r M a c h numbers where t h e f a c i l i t y d a t a d e v i a t e d from t h e c a l i b r a t i o n s t a n d a r d ( a n d t h e AADS p r o b e showed good a g r e e m e n t ) t h e AADS p r o b e t o t a l p r e s s u r e was c o n s i d e r e d a c c u r a t e e n o u g h t o u s e i n t h e p o s t - t e s t d a t a correction process. F i g u r e 6 compares t h e t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e of t h e p r e s s u r e r a t i o a c r o s s a normal shock (PT2/PT1) t o t h e measured v a l u e s ( A A D S PT2 t o f a c i l i t y PTl).

.

D u r i n g t h e t e s t p r o g r a m many p r o b l e m s o c c u r r e d s u c h a s a n erroneciu8 r i g h t p o r t r e a d i n g i n e a r l y t e s t s , s t i n g b a l a n c e problems, AB a r e s u l t poor t r a n s d u c e r performance and p r e s s u r e l e a k s .
corrections were made where p o s s i b l e ,
or data w a s

discarded.

In most

c a s e s f l o w t a r e s were d e t e r m i n e d b y running t h e m o d e l u p r i g h t a n d inverted. Where a v a i l a b l e , f a c i l i t y s t a n d a r d t a r e s w e r e u s e d . Many r e p e a t r u n s w e r e made t o a s c e r t a i n a t e s t d a t a u n c e r t a i n t y l e v e l . A l s o d a t a w e r e o b t a i n e d i n s e p a r a t e f a c i l i t i e s a t " o v e r l a p " Mach Where p o s s i b l e , R e y n o l d s n u m b e r e f f e c t s numbers of 1 . 5 5 , 2.5 and 3 . 5 . were d e t e r m i n e d e x p e r i m e n t a l l y . A n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s h a d shown n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t s , a n d t h i s was s u p p o r t e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a i n t h a t any d i f f e r e n c e s n o t e d were w i t h i n t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a uncertainties. E a r l y t e s t i n g w i t h t h e c a b l e t r a y f a i r i n g on and o f f showed s i g n f i c a n t e f f e c t s a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y a c o r r e c t i o n i s i n c l u d e d t o account f o r t h i s , Where e a c h o f t h e s e a f o r m e n t i o n e d t e s t i n g i r r e g u l a r i t i e s a p p e a r e d , a l e v e l o f u n c e r t a i n t y was i n c l u d e d i n t h e o v e r a l l AADS u n c e r t a i n t y a n a l y s i s . T h e p r o b e p r e s s u r e o r i f i c e l o c a t i o n s were s e l e c t e d b a s e d o n e a r l y p a r a m e t r i c t e s t i n g t o a l l o w t h e most a c c u r a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e d e s i r e d a i r d a t a s y s t e m p r o d u c t s of Mach number ( M I , d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e
191

(G), angle of attack ( a > and angle o f sideslip ( B ) . Compromises were necessary because probe locations for pitch and yaw attitudes were not compatible with those for static pressure. The pitch-plane and yawplane differential pressures, APa and A P a , are highly linear with respect to the angle of attack and angle of slideslip, respectively. An example of this, for a, is shown in figure 7 . Mach number is functionally related to PT and the average of PB and PU (upper orifice pressure) a n d s t a t i c pressure i s r e l a t e d to t h e l a t t e r (i.e., t h e average). This is indicated in figure 8 where C P M is the ratio of PT over PAVE. The analysis of the wind tunnel testing results showed that all of the AADS calibration parameters (needed to determine the air data products) were dependent on Mach number, angle of attack, and angle of sideslip. These however are also in the list of the desired air data products. Therefore an independent set of dimensionless calibration coefficients was required in order to avoid an extensive iteration scheme. The complete set follows:
Mach calibration coefficient Angle of attack
calibration coefficient
=

CPM

I

PT -

PAVE

= CPU =

APa pT

= CPB Angle of sideslip calibration coefficient

- aPTB P

where PAVE = PB

-

1 / 2 APa.

These coefficients can be obtained directly from the flight measurements and used in conjunction with a wind tunnel determined set of calibration curves. AADS Calibration Formulation The relationship between the wind tunnel calibration and the "calibration-corrected" flight d a t a is shown schematically in figure 9. Briefly, in the wind tunnel, the forebody model of the ET containing the spike probe is subjected t o the wind tunnel free-stream conditions (data subscripted WT). These data and the probe measurements are used to obtain the wind tunnel calibration coefficients and calibration parameters. After the flight, the flight air data products ( M y q, a, 6 ) are desired (subscripted F L T ) . The flight probe measurements are recorded and used as the input t o the wind tunnel calibration formulas to obtain a, 6, PT and PS (static pressure). The last two calibration-corrected terms are then used to calculate Mach number ( M I and dynamic pressure ( q > . What remains to be defined is the formulation of the calibration parameters for PS, PT, a, and E .

-

To determine the static and total pressures the classic "decrement" style of formulation was used where:
192

Static pressure c a l i b r a t i o n parameter

-

PAVE PS CPSD = PAVE

-

O R l W A t PAGE I S OF POOR QUALrrV

Total pressure = CPTD = c a l i b r a t i o n parameter

PT

-

PT2

PT

E a r l y i n t h e program it w a s f e l t t h a t t h e most d i f f i c u l t t e r m t o d e t e r m i n e would b e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , p a r t l y b e c a u s e t h e o r i f S c e s

u s e d ( P B a n d P U ) w e r e o n a 3' 0 cone, and p a r t l y b e c a u s e t h e p r e s s u r e r a t i a f o r m u l a t i o n t e n d s t o b l o w u p a t h i g h a l t i t u d e s ( a n d h i g h Mach ( T h i s was n u m b e r s ) w h e r e t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i s v e r y low. s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h t h e e a r l y f l i g h t d a t a f r o m STS-1 a n d a l t e r n a t e d a t a . was u s e d as d i s c u s s e d i n " F l i g h t R e s u l t s and D i s c u e s i o n " ) . The v a r i a t i o n o f CPSD w i t h t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , C P A , a n d t h e a n g l e o f s i d e s l i p c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , CPB, w a s s e e n T h i s i s shown i n f i g u r e 1 0 , f o r CPB, f o r t o b e p a r a b o l i c in n a t u r e . s e v e r a l CPM's ( s u b s o n i c ) . T h e v a r i a t i o n o f CPSD w i t h C P H i s much m o r e n o n l i n e a r a s s h o w n i n f i g u r e 11. Curve f i t a n a l y s e s , to o b t a i n a r e a s o n a b l e f i t w i t h CPM, r e d u c e d t h e 3 s i g m a e r r o r f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 . 1 2 t o 0.02 b y u s i n g a t h r e e p a r t c a l i b r a t i o n .

e

For t o t a l p r e s s u r e , CPTD showed t h e e f f e c t o f a a n d B o n l y b e l o w M x 1 . 5 , o r CPM = 1 . 3 5 . Above t h i s Hach n u m b e r t h e p r o b e m e a s u r e s PT2 d i r e c t l y ( i . e . CPTD = 0 ) . A t s u b s o n i c s p e e d s (PS/PT2 > 0.5283) t h e c o r r e c t e d p r e s s u r e i s PT1. Here t h e i s e n t r o p i c e q u a t i o n calibration i s used, where:

-

M ~45[(y)~'~ 11,

-

Pa = PS = a m b i e n t p r e s s u r e ,
a n d ' P T 1 = t o t a l p r e s s u r e a h e a d of
Rayleigh
pitot

t h e shoc'k.

A b o v e Mach 1 . 0 ,

the

f o r m u l a i s u ~ e d ,w h e r e :

512

The dynamic p r e s s u r e , thermally perfect gas:

<,

is c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e e q u a t i o n f o r a

w h e r e t h e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s , y , i s t a k e n a s 1.4 a n d P
05

= PS.

T h e a n g l e of a t t a c k , a, a n d a n g l e of s i d e s l i p , $ , w e r e c a l c u l a t e d from c a l i b r a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s d e f i n e d using a e l o p e and i n t e r c e p t c o n c e p t b e c a u s e of t h e h i g h d e g r e e of l i n e a r i t y i n t h e d a t a , shown previously in figure 7. For t h e e l o p e s ,

cx slope calibration = CPASL =

parameter 6 slope calibration = CPBSL = parameter

V- , I,

*IwT

I n order to obtain flight data from these calibration parameters, the equations are inverted to obtain the a and f3 slope terms, thusly:
C X

-

CPASL ~

APE/;

=

~

(CPa)(PT)/< ~ CPASL

~

~

For the magnitudes of the intercept terms

(aINT and 3 I N T 1, the above

slope equations are evaluated at a = 0 and f3 = 0, respectively. A n is needed in the pitch plane to account for additional term (,, A,) a, the proximity effect of the Orbiter on the APa measurements (see fig. 5). T h e variation of the slope and intercept terms w i t h Mach number (for a ) are shown in figures 12 and 1 3 , respectively. Both are fairly
w e l l b e h a v e d w i t h n o n - l i n e a r i t i e s i n t h e M a c h 1.3
to

1.8 r e g i o n .

Note

that above this region both terms are nearly constant. Angle of sideslip slopes w e r e similar but the intercept term w a s quite different due to the asymmetry caused by the cable t r a y fairing. The f l o w of the AADS calculations is shown in figure 14. Note that after the Mach number (MI and dynamic pressure (i) are determined they c a n be used directly to obtain 01 and B . The angle of attack and angle of sideslip calculations both require a n additional term ( M S L ) determined f r o m a n alignment check after nose cone installation o n the ET (see "Ascent Air Data System Description"). FLIGHT DATA T h e heart of the AADS flight instrumentation package is the four pressure transducers mounted o n a bulkhead inside the 4' n o s e cone o n 0 the tip of the ET ( f i g . 3 ) . T h e pneumatic lines are s h o r t , w h i c h reduces the lag factor to a negligible quantity. < T h e pressure transducers are bench calibrated by the manufacturer twice, with a vibration test done in between. Each calibration starts at a zero point, goes to f u l l scale in 1 2 . 5 percent increments, t h e n is decremented in the same steps to reach the starting point. Recordings are made at each step. This procedure is repeated twice at five different control temperatures ranging f r o m 5 0 ' to 240' Fahrenheit. The nominal calibration w a s for 150°F w i t h temperature compensation made €or any deviations using a polynomial that was a function of both the temperature difference and the percent of full scale pressure level. The allowable transducer calibration error w a s 1 / 2 percent o f
194

full scale. The uncertainty would approximately double without temperature compensation. The digitization o f the flight pressures was done using 2 5 2 counts for the full scale range, resulting in a data granularity of 0 . 0 5 9 5 psia for the absolute pressures (PT and PB) and 0.0159 psia for the differential pressures (APa and APB). The flight data for the AADS were available from the Orbiter telemetry (TM) system as well as from the on-board recorder. Plans for postflight analyses included u s i n g both sources. The planned A A D S postflight data flow is shown i n figure 15. The TM data for " Q u i c k . Look" analyses was generally available 24 h o u r s after launch as part of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Shuttle Data Base. Tracing the "Quick Look" path, the data was converted from volts t o counts .using the nominal calibration curve (T 150°F), then converted from counts to pressures in engineering units and loaded into both the Martin Marietta (MMC) data base at Slidell, LA and into the MSFC data base. The data were then transmitted to the Space Shuttle prime contractor in California for conversion t o the air data products. The basic differences in the "Final" data were temperature compensation, and use of best estimated trajectory (BET) data for comparison purposes. Two additions were made to the AADS data processing system for the STS-1 postflight analysis. The first was the capability to access the STS data base directly from the NASA-Johnson Space Center using a remote terminal and an existing 1200 BAUD FTS telephone line. The second difference was the use of reconstructed trajectory simulation data for "Quick Look" analyses. Samples of the basic flight data measurements are shown in figures 16 through 19. Figure 16 shows that the nose cap temperature

0 was approximately 3 '

lower than estimated and dropped approximately

1' during ascent. The time history of the total pressure is shown in 1 figure 17. Data levels obtained for pre-launch conditions, shown in figure 17(b) (see fig. 1 8 for bottom pressure) were adjusted to the static pressure at the ET tip elevation (approximately 280 feet above
mean s e a level), obtained

from

local meteorological measurements just

prior t o lift off. Figure 19 represents the differential pressure in p i t c h ( A P d , where the preflight level seen in figure 19(b) s'hows the zero adjustments that had to be made. Note the data granularity, previously mentioned, that is shown graphically in figures 1 6 , 17(b), 18 and 19(b). Note also that the pressure data sample rate was 10 samples per second with the exception of the bottom pressure which was at 1 sample per second. This caused some problems when combining this data with the APa data to obtain PAVE. Other data problems that occurred early in the program were the use of incorrect transducer calibrations, reverse polarity of the pitch-plane differential pressure ( M a ) , data timing discrepancies, and data smoothing and merging.

195

ESTIMATED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Preflight estimates of the AADS product uncertainties were made and are shown in figure 2 0 . The estimates shown are for end-to-end systems performance and include the uncertainties resulting from wind tunnel calibration (including curve fit), pressure calibration data transmission, AADS spike manufacturing, and AADS alignment. The user requirements, designated by crosshatching, are superimposed on the figure for comparison purposes. There is no defined subsystem (or user) requirement for Mach number; however, because it can indirectly affect l o o k - u p values in the wind tunnel calibrations and other postflight user analyses, it was included for completeness. There is a peak in the uncertainty estimate for a and 6 near a Mach number of 1.6, which indicates a pressure discontinuity caused by a shock wave passing over the 30' cone pressure orifices. All o f the uncertainty estimates can be seen to increase at the higher Mach numbers. The estimated uncertainty increases because, while the uncertainties in the pressure measurements remain essentially constant, the trajectory pressures are decreasing exponentially. The data of figure 2 0 show that the estimated attitude uncertainties are well below the requirements f o r the m a j o r portion o f the flight. is exceeded by t h e e s t i m a t e d u n c e r t a i n t y The user requirement for below a Mach number of approximately 1.2. FLIGHT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Early Analyses and Procedures The first Space Shuttle OFT lifted off on April 12, 1981. Flight data in the form of ground station recorded telemetry were available in 24 hours as advertised. Ah early calculation of the AADS air data products (circle symbols) is given in figure 21. The AADS data was available much sooner than the BET would be, therefore the early analyses used the available reconstructed trajectory simulation data (solid line) for comparison, The reconstructed trajectory contains merged meteorological data (winds and atmosphere), MSFC SRB-quick look thrust, SSME gimbal angle bias, elevon deflection angle bias and ascent aerodynamic variations for C N , Cm and base pressure coefficient. During these early analyses of the STS-1 data many problems surfaced (basic data problems were mentioned in "Flight Data") in the process o f calculating the AADS air data products. The basic data were smoothed, filtered, merged, etc. using many methods until one was chosen that satisfied the data reduction process without compromising the accuracy of the data. The comparison shown in figure 21 is the first "quick-look" data set that was published. There are obvious discrepancies between the two sets of data. The AADS Mach number diverges quite rapidly after T=80 seconds. The AADS dynamic pressure shows a large peak in the T-50 second region and an apparent data time shift past 7 0 seconds. The AADS a time history looked good up to approximately 8 0 seconds. Continuing data analyses showed the
196

(;IRjGfG& p d :; z 2-3 OF POOR QUALnr AADS static pressure to be difficult t o calculate accurately at the higher Mach numbers (actually at a low pressure, or an altitude effect). This was not unexpected from experience during the wind tunnel program and was actually predicted as shown in the "Estimated System Performance" section (albeit at higher Mach numbers). AADS data calculations were made subsequently using the static pressure from the reconstructed trajectory. This method of overriding the static pressure became standard procedure for the final AADS data calculations with the exception of the BET data being considered the best source for static pressure. Figure 2 2 shows the air data products for STS-1 using the BET for comparison purposes. (The BET uses a regression analysis program to solve for modeled systematic errors. The noise and remaining systematic errors are ''fit" in a weighted least-squares sense. Input to this program includes ground tracking, meteorological, and navigation systems data.) Included in the coinparison is the onboard navigation system (NAV) generated data. A thorough discussion of this flight data can be found in reference 3 . It should be pointed out that comparison with the AADS calculations for STS-1 revealed an error in the wind direction that was resident in this s e t of BET data, as shown graphically on the figures. The BET was subsequently corrected.

Flight Data Comparisons 'Comparison sets of the air data products €or the OFT series through - 4 ) are given in figures 23 through 2 6 for M, CC, and B, respectively. The reader is reminded that the data labeled "AADS" on these sets actually used the PS from the B E T (i.e., conversely PT, A P a , A P B are from the AADS data). Also data labeled "EX42 S I M " is the previously described simulation data. The comparisons o f the data indicate random differences flight to flight, with no consistent quantitative trends showing u p .
(STS-1

e,

Mach number comparisons in figure 23 show deviations of a n d greater deviations (up to 6 percent) at the highest Mach numbers for all flights. In general. this is considered very good agreement. For dynamic pressure in figure 24 the 'fAADS-BET" differences were less than 2 0 psf for all flights and were a maximum of approximately 3 percent in the critical transonic Mach number region.
approximately 3 percent or less near Mach 2 . 0 ,

The angle of attack and sideslip comparisons in figures 2 5 and 26 again ohow the randomness of the data. Static pressure had little effect on these calculations (as shown in comparing to figures 22(c) and 22(:d)), s o that using PS from the BET is of no consequence. The predicted divergence at the higher Mach numbers is again prevalent. The AADS data is felt to be the best data source for a and B because of the fact that the AADS spike is measuring wind effects real time whereari the other sources are using meteorological data taken slightly prior t o (or slightly after) lift-off. In general the AADS gave overall. results that satisfied the user requirements for postflight systems analyses.

197

To ensure that the end-to-end accuracy of the calculated air data products meet the user requirements, the many sources of potential data uncertainties must be investigated, assessed (as to the error magnitude), and either accepted or improved upon. For the A A D S , user requirements were established early (the requirement for angle of
attack and sideslip for structural loads analyses was originally O.ZO, but vas later increased to 0 5 . ' based on the Orbiter air data system flight results). The several areas needing investigation as error sources were the wind tunnel test program, the calibration formulation, and the flight hardwareldata processing system.
F o r the wind tunnel teet program, procedures instituted during

the Orbiter air data system tests2 were used. In spite of using high quality instrumentation, consistent test procedures and calibration standards for facility test conditions, the scatter in t h e wind tunnel data accounted for over one-half of the estimated air data product error. Very l i t t l e c a n be done a b o u t this without expending large amounts of time and money for additional verification testing using many models in many facilities. The increased accuracy would b e in the form of higher probability with the increased sample of data. The calibration formulation had two aspects to it. One was the curve f i t , which is again a statistical quantity. For this the A A D S polynomial was expanded to minimize these errors to a reasonable level. The second aspect was the calibration parameters used. A s it turned out, many other data combinations of measured (AADS spike) and known (wind tunnel), or desired (flight), pressures were looked a t , plotted, and analyzed prior to the selection of those used. A better set probably could have been found if time and the data manipulation effort were no object. A g a i n the question is: Is the additional effort worth the increased data accuracy? In t h i s case it probably was not. The flight hardware, including instrumentation, w a s a m i x e d s e t . The A A D S spike was manufactured to very high tolerances and was aligned accurately, both the 1Oo/3O0 conic sections and the spike to the 40' nose cone. The flight pressure transducer error, however, was a major contributor to the estimated system errors. This could have been circumvented by using dual-range transducers or transducer pairs with a switching device, but we are again talking about increased costs. In our case the user requirements at the higher Mach numbers (lower pressures) did not warrant the increased costs. A source o f error that should have been avoided was the data sample rate. All pressure data was at a rate of 10 samples/second except PB which was at 1 samplefsecond. The lower rate tends to smooth the absolute pressure measurement, and when combining it with the A P a measurement to obtain P A V E , results in unnecessary data uncertainties.

198

A l l of the i n t e g r a t i o n and 1 ) b e d o n e , and potential error

a b o v e c o m m e n t s point to t h e fact that a thorough e r r o r a n a l y s i s of a l l of t h e i n v o l v e d s y s t e m s s h o u l d : 2 ) b e d o n e early. T h i s w a y , a r e a s that a r e large s o u r c e s c a n be identified and p o s s i b l y a v o i d e d , CONCLUDING REMARKS

T h e ascent air d a t a system w a s d e s i g n e d to o b t a i n d a t a t o s u p p o r t postflight a n a l y s e s of t h e S p a c e S h u t t l e o r b i t a l flight test series. P r e s s u r e d a t a w e r e o b t a i n e d f o r f l i g h t s STS-1 t h r o u g h - 4 , and w e r e t h e n c o n v e r t e d t o t h e d e e i r e d air data p r o d u c t s t h r o u g h u s e of the w i n d t u n n e l c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a base. R e s u l t s showed that t h e flight static p r e s s u r e c a l c u l a t i o n d i v e r g e d at t h e h i g h e r M a c h numbers. It w a s t h e r e f o r e r e p l a c e d b y s t a t ic pr e s s u r e f r o m a "bes t e s t ima t e d " ( p o s t f 1 i g h t ) t r a j e c t o r y (BET:). W h e n c o m p a r i n g flight A A D S d a t a c a l c u l a t e d in this m a n n e r w i t h t h e BET data, M a c h n u m b e r showed v e r y g o o d a g r e e m e n t , d y n a m i c presrrure w a s w i t h i n 3 percent in the c r i t i c a l t r a n s o n i c r e g i o n , and a n g l e of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p compared well. T h e A A D S a and are c o n s i d e r e d t h e beet s o u r c e of a t t i t u d e d a t a b e c a u s e they m e a s u r e r e a l t i m e w i n d s a n d a r e e s s e n t i a l l y u n a f f e c t e d by f l i g h t static or t o t a l presoures. I n g e n e r a l t h e A A D S p e r f o r m a n c e w a s e s s e n t i a l l y as e s t i m a t e d p r e f l i g h t and t h e r e s u i t s s a t i s f i e d t h e u s e r requirements.

-

L e s s o n s learned i n c l u d e the i m p o r t a n c e of o b t a i n i n g a good e s t i m a t e of t h e end product data u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e s y s t e m s o t h a t w e a k a r e a s c a n be strengthened. A s w i t h most m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n e d s y s t e m s , t h e d e f i n e d e r r o r Bources c a n b e improved on, but only b y e x t e n d i n g t e s t / a n a l y s i e t i m e , o r w i t h increased c o s t s or both. A n o t h e r m a j o r a r e a of improvement would h a v e b e e n to h a v e a t h o r o u g h s y s t e m s i n t e g r a t i o n effort that started at t h e b e g i n n i n g of the A A D S p r o g r a m and c o n t i n u e d t h r o u g h to t h e end. REFERENCES

1. 2.
3.

The A s c e n t A i r D a t a E i l l j e , Ernest R.; and T y m m s , D a v i d E.: S y s t e m for t h e S p a c e Shuttle. A I A A P a p e r 80-0422, M a r c h 1980. W i n d T u n n e l and F l i g h t H i l l j e , Ernest R.; and T y m m s , D a v i d E.: C a l i b r a t i o n of the S h u t t l e O r b i t e r A i r D a t a System. A I A A P a p e r 78-792, A p r i l 1978. H i l l j e , Ernest R,; and Nelson, R a y m o n d L.: Post Flight A n a l y s i s of t h e S p a c e S h u t t l e A s c e n t A i r D a t a System. A Z A A Paper 81-2457, N o v e m b e r 1981.

199

TABLE 1.FLIGHT TEST REOU IREMENT NO.

FLIGHT TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR ASCENT AIR DATA

SUBSYSTEM AERODYNAMICS

FLIGHT TEST REQUIREMENT OBJECTIVE

07VV002

0 LAUNCH VEHICLE POWER-ON BASE DRAG
DETERMINE LAUNCH VEHICLE BASE DRAG DURING FIRST AND SECOND STAGE ASCENT

07VV001

AERODYNAMICS

0 ASCENT AERODYNAMICS
ESTABLISH THE EXTERNAL AI RLOAD ENVl RONMENTS, VERIFY AERODYNAMIC CHARACTER1 STI CS, AND PROVIDE AERODYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS FOR PROGRAM
D l AGNOSl S

A?C -1

M I S S I O N CAPABILITY

0 ASCENT PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
VERIFY SPACE SHUTTLE VEHICLE PERFORMANCE (INJECTED WEIGHT) I N THE FLIGHT ENVIRONMENT

47VB 018

SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER SEPARATION PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL TANK SEPARATION PERFORMANCE

0 SOLI D ROCKET BOOSTER SEPARATION PERFORMANCE
VERIFY THE SYSTEII? PERFORMANCE

48VT013

0 EXTERNAL TANK SEPARATION PERFORMANCE
VERIFY THE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (RETURN TO LAUNCH SITE PHASE ONLY1

08VV001

STRUCTURES

0 LOAD AND STRESS EVALUATION
DETERMINE SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT LOADS AND LOAD S P EC TR A

07VV020

THERM9DYNAMIC

ASCENT AERO HEATING VERIFICATION VERIFY THE SHUllLE VEHICLE ASCENT AERO-THERMAL DESIGN ENVl RONMENT

20 a

TABLE 2.-

AN)S ACCURACY

REQUIREMENTS

I PARAMETER I
I
CUSP

MACH

I

VALUE

I AREA OF EVALUATION I
STRUCTURAL LOADS AERODYNAMICS AEROHEATI NG

0.6 - 2.0
0.6 - 2.0

k0.5"OR 10% k0.5"
20.5"
+1.0"

2.0 - 4.3 4 . 3 - 5.0

I

,9

I 0.6-2.0 I

2370

I

STRUCTURAL LOADS

I

TABLE 3.- AADS WIND TUNNEL PROGRAM

TEST

MODEL SCALE
EXTERNAL TANK PROBE
10' CONIC 40" PROBE AFT
FAIRING

M RANGE

FAClLlTY

I II
111
Iv"

0.07 (FOREBODY) 0.004 INTEGRATED
VEHICLE

0.55-1.1 5 0.6-1.2 0.6-1.55 1.55-2.5 2.5-3.5 3.5-4.63 0.6-1.55 1.55-2.5

ARC 14' MSFC 14" AEDC 16T ARC 9 x 7' ARC 8 x 7' LRC UPWT AEDC 16T ARC 9 x 7'

0.07 (FOREBODY)
0.07 (FOREBODY) 0.07 (FOREBODY) 0.07 (FOREBODY) 0.03 INTEGRATED

V" VII' VHP

30"/10" CONIC 30"/10"CONIC 30"/10" CONIC 30°/100 CONIC 30'11 0"CONIC 30'11 0" CONIC

vw*

VEHICLE 0.03 INTEGRATED VEHICLE

'BASIC TEST DATA **VERIFICATION TEST DATA

20 1

APa= P BOTTOM APB = P RIGHT

- P LEFT

- P UPPER

F i g u r e 1.- Ascent a i r d a t a s y s t e m f l i g h t c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

I. -

2.41 8

FLARE .15D

F i g u r e 2.-

M

S spike pressure port d e t a i l s , dimens i o n s i n i n c h e s . )

(All l i n e a r

202

Figure 3.

AADS hardware arrangement.

(All linear dimensions in inches.)

203

(a) S e v e n p e r c e n t forebody model - f r o n t q u a r t e r v i e w .

( b ) Sevcn p e r c e n t f o r e b o d y model - s i d e v i e w s h o w i n g cable tray fairing. Ficlure 4.-

AADS wind t u n n e l models.

204

a
( c ) F l i g h t t e s t boom

-

used as c a l i b r a t i o n s t a n d a r d .

F i g u r e 4.-

Concluded.

205

.20 -24

iI

AuPROX., DEG.

.5

.6

.7

.8
M

.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

F i g u r e 5.-

E f f e c t of O r b i t e r and SRB on t h e AADS a n g l e of a t t a c k .

1.0

-

.0

-

PT1

PT2 -6

--

.4

.2

I
.4
.8
1

0

I
1.6

I

I

I

I

I

1

I
4.4

1
4.0

1.2

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

M

Figure 6.-

Comparison of measured and t h e o r e t i c a l p r e s s u r e r a t i o s .

206

CP

t) a = *) : (E-U P
1
0

CP(B-U)=

A 4
Pa

Figure 7 . - Wind tunnel p i t c h plane c o e f f i c i e n t versus angle of attack.

3.4

-

3.2
3.0

-

2.8 2.6 2.4 CPY 2.2

2.0
1.8

-

1.6
1.4

1.2 1.0
I
I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

0.0

0.5

I
5.0

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 M

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Figure 8.- Mach c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (CPM) versus Mach number.

207

W .T. FREE-STREAM CONDITIONS

///////////

W .T. PROBE DATA

W.T. CALIBRATION

+ :pa
FREE-FLIGHT CONDITIONS

APa
PT

I

I

CPM

I

WIND TUNNEL

Y

I

CPM

/iI

I

1

ff

FLT

I

M-,

4-

PT
P ..--. RnRF

FLIGHT
DATA
- I . - - -

W .T. CALIBRATION

CALIBRATION CORRECTED (FLIGHT) DATA

-

FLIGHT
Figure 9.Example of wind tunnel c a l i b r a t i o d f l i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p .

208

.?
CPA

=0

.6

n

CPM

.S
.4
CPSD

n

1.150

1.120

.3

.2

. 1
0 -.5

fi
A
0
CPB

1.110 1.090 1.080 1.050

-.4

-3

-.2

-.l

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

F i g u r e 10.-

Static p r e s s u r e decrement ( C P S D ) versus a n g l c of s i d e s l i p c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i . c * i e n t ( C P B ) .
CPA

= 0.000

f ,010

CPB =O.OOO f .OiO

*'0 1.0

*
1.2

14 .

1.6

18 .

20 .

2.2

2.4

26 .

2.8

3.0

3.2

CPM

F i g u r e 11 S t a t i c p r e s s u r e decrement (CPSI)) v e r s u s Mach c a l i b r a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (CPN)

.-

.

209

.OB

.07

.O
0

I

I

I

1

I

I

1

I

I
4.5

I
5.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

MACH NUMBER

Figure 12.-

S l o p e c a l i b r a t i o n parameter for CY, (CPASL) versus Mach number.

0.8

0.6
0.4

0.2

0

F -0.2
-0.4

c

-0.6

-0.8
I
I I
I

-1.0

I

I

1

I

1

I

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 2.5 3.0 MACH NUMBER

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 13.- Angle of a t t a c k c a l i b r a t i o n parameter i n t e r c e p t term (C~INT) v e r s u s Mach number.
210

CPTD

= f(CPM,
I

I PTZFLT = PT(1 - CPTD) 1
SUPERSONIC PS

pT2>.52a3

PS -< PT2-'

5283

I
I

1

1
= f(PT2,
PS)

MFLT

RAY LEIGH PITOT FORMULA

( a ) S t a t i c and total p r e s s u r e , Mach number, and dynamic p r e s s u r e .

I MFLT~~ F L T I
CPBSL

= f ( C P a , M)

(b) A n g l e s of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p .

F i g u r e 14.-

AADS a i r d a t a p r o d u c t c a l c u l a t i o n p r o c e d u r e .

211

"OUICK LOOK"

T Y DATA (MILA OR (MILA OR
RPSI

- ~.
-

SHIPTAPE COPY TO YMCISLIDELL (MSFC)

J
_) I

FINAL

ON-BOARD RECORDER WIDEBAND (DFRCI

snip TAPE COPY TO MUCISLIDELL (MSFC)

MERGE DATA TO BEST SOURCE (MMC:SLIDELL)

+
Y

r

I
+

TRANSDUCER CALIERATIONS P : (V. TI I OL T i 1 5 0 9 FINAL T - M E A S LIFT.OFF TEMP ( R I AND MMC)

AADS PRESSURES

CCT FORM (JSCI

I

BET (..B.M.q. ETC) (JSCIFMW

AIR D A T A CALCS ( A A D S PROGRAM) BASE0 O N W T LCALlB (...%M.q ETCI (RUDOWNEV)

CONVERT AADS PRESSURES TO ENGR. UNITS. LOAD INTO DATABASE (MMCISLIDELLI TRANSMIT HOST. TO HOST TO RIISEAL BCH. CA UNIVAC 1108

I

A

.

7

CONVERT TO CDC I N COMDAT FORMAT (RIIDOWNEV)

e

-

CONVERTTO UNIVAC 1 7 0 8 iRUDOWNEYI
TO

AVAILABLE TO JSC

- HOST T O
1

AVAILABLE TO

TRANSMIT HOSTTO H O S T T O

U S F C DATA BASE

AVAILABLE TO MSFC

F i g u r e 15.- M U S postflight pressure d a t a acquisition.
.___-

0

50

100

150

200

250

I

SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1981:10212 0 3 0

F i g u r e 1 6 . - M D S b a s i c measurement d a t a - nose c a p &IDS package t e m p e r a t u r e . STS-1 data.

212

16

14

12

10

B

6

4

2
0 -20 0

20

40

60

Bo

100

120

140

160

SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1981:102:12: 0 3 9 :

( a ) A s c e n t : f l i g h t phase.

-! 1 I 15.200

-

14.600

14.400

14.200

I
-5
0

5 10 15 SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1981:10212 0: 3 9

20

(b) Near l i f t - o f f .
F i g u r e 17.-

AADS basic measurement d a t a
pressure (PT).

- nose

cap t o t a l

2 13

14.900

14.000

14.700

5
14.600

s c z
3 14.500

14.400

14.300

14.200
-5
0

5

10

15

20

SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1981:10L12: 0: 3 9

Figure 18.- AADS basic measurement data nose cap pressure Z p o r t (PB) near l i f t - o f f .

-

-

-

/

2 14

.400

-.2oo

-.roo
400
-20 0

20 40 60 80 100 SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1 9 6 1 : 1 ~ 1 2 3 9 0: :

120

140

160

(a) Ascent flight phase.

-.150

-5

0

5

10

15

20

SECONDS RELATIVE TO 1#1:10212 0 3: 9

(b) Near l i f t - o f f .
Figure 19.- A A D S basic measurement data - nose cap differential pressure-pitch (APa)

.

2 15

10 -

q

d

~~~

10 5

REQUIREMENT

A q'/q

(f% )

5

I

I
I I

I

I

1

I

I

I

0

AERODY N AM ICs, LOADS

1.0

r

AEROHEATING REQUIREMENT

A B,
A a,
(

.5

t DEW
I
I I

I

I

0

1 2 3 4 MACH NUMBER

5

F i g u r e 20.-

Estimated AADS a i r data product u n c e r t a i n t i e s .

216

5.0

.
-

0

4.5

00

00

4.0

3.5

-

3.0

2
a!

I

2.5

20

1.5
1.0

:

0.5

4
20

0

0.0

1

30

40

50

60

70
TIME

60

Qo

100

110

120

(a) Mach number versus time from l i f t - o f f .

0

0

0 0

0 -

,

1

10

50

40

50

00

70
TIME

80

W

100

110

110

( b ) Dynamic pressure (QBAR) versus t i m e from l i f t - o f f . Figure 21.- "Quick-Look" STS-1 A A D S a i r data c a l c u l a t i o n s ( c i r c l e s ) compared with simulated reference t r a j e c t o r y data (solid line).
217

-10

a

., 30
40

3

20

50

80

70

W

80

100

110

'

120

TfME

(c) Angle of a t t a c k (ALPHA) versus time
froin l i f t - o f f .

2 1

-4

1
i

-8
-10

. .
20

9

30

40

SO

00

70

80

90

100

110

110

TIME

(d) Angle of s i d e s l i p (BETA) versus time from l i f t - o f f .

Figure 21.2 18

Concluded.

ORfGWAL P/'i',GT OF POOR QUALITY

5.0
4.5

r
~

1

4.0

z
a

s 3

w m

K

3.5 I

I .

3.0
2.5 i
I

P A 08' ./A" I
BET: WIND DIRECTION ERROR

d

i

l

2.0
1.5

1.o

0.5
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TIME SEC
( a ) Mach number v e r s u s t i m e from lift-off.
F i g u r e 22.-

P r e l i m i n a r y STS-1 AADS a i r d a t a c a l c u l a t i o n s compared with a l t e r n a t e data sources.

2 19

(b) Dynamic p r e s s u r e v e r s u s t i m e from l i f t - o f f .

F i g u r e 22.-

Continued.

220

ORIGINAL PAGE 5 9 OF POOR QUALIW

6.0

I

2 0.0 +
~

Y

& -2.0

a

c

-6.0

-8.0 I

20

30

40

50

60 TIME SEC

70

80

90

100

( c ) Angle of a t t a c k v e r s u s t i m e from lift-off.

F i g u r e 2 2 . - Continued.

22 1

6.0

-v

I

4.0

i

BET: WIND DIRECTION ERROR

I

I

I
w
I

I

-4.u
-6.0

I
1
1

0 AADS 0 AADSI
A

PS BET

I

-8.0

w
20

BET + NAV

30

40

50

60
TIME SEC

70

80

90

100

( d ) Angle of s i d e s l i p v e r s u s time from l i f t - o f f .
F i g u r e 22.- Concluded.

222

a
1

AIOS . . . . .EX42 SIM ....
x BET

I------”.
, .

30

40

50

60

TO M TIME (SEC)

w

loo

110

120

- -BET-SIY
.4

.........

AAOS-StM AAOS-BET

1

~

-.2

- ..........................
30
40 50
60

. . . . . . .

5
70

80

W

loo

110

120

TIME (SEC)

( a ) STS-1.

e
SO

..........

AAOS EX42 SIM

40

so

W

70

60

W

loo

110

120

TIME (SEC)

--

_ _ _ -AAOS-BET _-__BET-SIY ___
~

AAOS-SIM

30

I

40

TO

M

90

100

110

120

TIME (SEC)

( b ) STS-2. F i g u r e 23.- Final A A D S a i r d a t a comparisons and d i f f e r e n c e s f o r Mach number (M).

223

OF POOR QUALITY
5
i
1

ORIGINAL P E E 2 3

- - - - - .. - T

AADS EX42 SIM BET --

( c ) STS-3.

S

1
E

0 . . . . . . . . 50 40

l:
: o I !

5 -A E

4 -.2

..- - - - - EX42SIM x -_ _BET 1
L
AADS

................................................

.................................................

/ . . . . ...

. .

.

.

.

I 1

. . . . . " . . ' . . . " . . . ~ " ' ' . ' . .

so

60

70

60

I .110

90

100

120

TIME (SEC)

__--_ -_-

AADS-SIM AADS-BET BET-SIH

?

-_ 1

--

1

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

,I -_ -

~-

-

__~120

30

40

50

80

70

80

90

100

110

TIME (SEC)

(d) STS-4.

F i g u r e 23. - Concluded.

224

ORIDtil!AL PAGE M OF POGR QUAL!’IY

-

--- -

AADS
EX42SIM

X BET

1

1

(a> STS-1.

sroo m a
200

i
30
40

I

0 50 60
70

10

so

100

110

120

TIME (SEC)

- - -- - - --.-_-

UDS-SIM AAD S-B ET
BET-SIM

E
U

60

.
.

__

___-

40{

I

( b ) STS-2.

F i g u r e 24.- F i n a l AADS air d a t a comparisons and d i f f e r e n c e s f o r dynamic p r e s s u r e (QBAR)

.

225

800

MDS EX42 SlM

-

X BET

0

- I . . . . , . . . . , . . . .. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
40

so

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

TIME (SEC)
AADS-SIM ----_ ___ _-AADS-BET

- --

BET-SIM

so

40

50

60

70 #o TIYE (SEC)

90

loo

110

120

(c)

STS-3.

________
800

AADS EX42 SIM X BET

7-

200

0

so

,

____

30

40

50

0

70 80 TIME (SEC)

eo

loo

110

120

(d) STS-4.

Figure 24.-

Concluded.

226

ORIGINAL PAGE 8
OF POOR QUALITY
a,
6 X ..

BET

,---{

-.---_

s4{ g2: * O -. I
n
A

:

a

-2

30

40

50

60

70 80 TIME (SEC)

so

100

110

120

AADS-IY
-____-.___ AAOS-BET

--BET-SIM

30

40

50

60

70

60 TIME (SEC)

w

100

110

"120

( a ) STS-1.

0

;..............................
..... .' ..I.I. .,...-.. . . . . . . . . . -.., .x,+-*,*
I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................

!
i
. , -.-110 120

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

-4 -64

. ,

,,'..,'

..............................
$0

. . . . .
40
50

30

00

70 60 TIME (SEC)

100

5

-2

1
1

g

-

3

1
40

-

50

60

.
70 80 TIME (SEC)

.

I _ . .

30

w

100

110

120

(b) STS-2.

F i g u r e 25.- F i n a l AADS air d a t a comparisons and d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a n g l e of a t t a c k (ALPHA).

227

_--__

MDS EX42 SIM

- 6 1

. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
50
(0 1

I

.

. . .-?----------v---l-----~
80

30

70

90

100

110

120

TIME (SEC)
AADS-SIM

. . . . . AADS-BET .....
W

9

3

e < I
4
Y

5 Q .1
5
<
-1

-j
2 1

.........................
%,,--,
r"'

..........

I

. . . . .

--$+> . . ,+.%: : + ?
.....
,*__

4 L . g 7 #
.

.....
,

-2 3 o -3 .....----.

.
40

.
50

.

.
80

.

,

.

. , l .
-__*--

-

-

I

30

60

70

90

loo

110

120

TIME (SEC)

(c)

STS-3.

-

-

AAOS EX42SIM BET
I I

I

/;-;---7,;

......................

------I
4
-6

. . . . . . . . . . . .

I
40

i

3a

so

80

70

80

90

100

110

120

TIME (SEC)

AADS-SiM .........

-- AADS-BET BET-SIM

(d) STS-4.

Figure 25.228

Concluded.

8

-

-

AADS EX42SIM
BET

1
I

-

4 1

... . .
-4

f

I

-6

.

.

.

.

I

.

,

.

.
50

..

.

. , .
do

.

.
70 80 TIME (SEC)

I
so
100

30

40

110

120

..____-___ AADS-BET

AAOS-SlM

,---- -A .
30
50

60

70 (0 1 TIME (SEC)

so

loa

110

120

(a) STS-1.

__
6
-

_.

-

AAQS EX42SIM

BET .____

1

(b) STS-2.
Figure 26.- F i n a l AADS a i r data comparisons and d i f f e r e n c e s f o r angle of s i d e s l i p (BETA).

229

MQ --_ EX42SSIM

-

x BET

I
.- .

3' . .. ...... . ..

.. .

. . .

1

. 30
40

.

. . ,

.

.

.

~. .

.

,
110

I

so

80

70

80

Do

loo

120

TIME (SLC)

(c)

STS-3.

MDS

- -

X

EX42 SIM BET

i
1

:I..,,
-6

, ,
50

i I
60
70

3 0 1 0

BO

Do

loo

110

120

TIME (SEC)

----.

---

AADS-$111 AADS-BET BET-SIM

:T-

---

-1
120

-21
-3
30

,

,

,

,

,

_ _ c - - -

40

50

60

10
TIME (SEC)

80

W

loll

110

( d ) STS-4.

Figure 26.-

Concluded.

230

SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER VENTING
LESSONS LEARN ED

-

H. S. L u t f i Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Downey, C a l i f o r n i a

Raymond L . Nieder NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas

SUMMARY
The o r b i t e r v e n t system provides dedicated vent areas t o permit the gases trapped i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e t o escape d u r i n g ascent. The same vent system a l s o r e p r e s s u r i z e s the v e h i c l e d u r i n g e n t r y . The vent system i s one o f s i x systems t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s the purge, vent and d r a i n subsystem. The o r b i t e r a c t i v e vent system has been very adaptable t o t h e changing requirements t h a t have occurred during t h e development o f t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r . Good c o r r e l a t i o n has been obtained between p r e d i c t e d and measured compartment pressures d u r i n g t h e o r b i t a l f l i g h t t e s t (OFT) program. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e f l i g h t data showed t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n and t h e measured values were p r i m a r i l y due t o t h e difference between t h e base1 i n e e x t e r n a l pressures, which wa.s based on subscale wind tunnel t e s t data, and t h e a c t u a l v e h i c l e l o c a l e x t e r n a l pressures measured d u r i n g t h e f l i g h t . The c u r r e n t p r e d i c t i o n s a r e based on f l i g h t d e r i v e d vent p o r t pressure c o e f f i c i e n t s since t h e wind tunnel data does n o t adequately define t h e o r b i t e r ascent pressure environment. Recommendations f o r f u t u r e v e h i c l e vent systems i n c l u d e designing f o r l a r g e vent areas, p r o v i d i n g f o r s u f f i c i e n t f l i g h t instrumentation, performing s t r u c t u r a l Teakage t e s t i n g , and a v o i d i n g e x t e r n a l vent p o r t s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o one another.

@

ORBITER ACTIVE VENT SYSTEM
The Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r purge, vent and d r a i n (PVD) subsystem c o n s i s t s o f s i x

--

basic systems whose primary f u n c t i o n i s the environmental c o n t r o l o f t h e o r b i t e r unpressurized s t r u c t u r a l compartments. One o f these i s t h e vent system which
provides dedicated vent areas t o c o n t r o l the gases e n t e r i n g and e x i t i n g from the various compartments d u r i n g ascent, on-orbi t, e n t r y and ground purging. The o r b i t e r a c t i ve vent system maintains acceptable s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n t i a l pressures through c o n t r o l l e d v e n t i n g d u r i n g ascent d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n and descent r e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n . The system a l s o provides f o r o n - o r b i t molecular venting t o a s s i s t the thermal c o n t r o l subsystem i n s u l a t i o n blankets i n reaching maximum e f f i c i e n c y and t o provide reduced vent p o r t area so t h a t t h e purge system can m a i n t a i n a p o s i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure f o r moisture and hazardous gas c o n t r o l . The a c t i v e vents a r e equipped w i t h electromechanical doors which a r e l o c a t e d on both sides of t h e o r b i t e r as shown i n f i g u r e 1 There a r e nine a c t i v e vent doors o f . which t h r e e a r e independently actuated w h i l e the remainder a r e actuated i n groups o f two. Each vent system c o n s i s t s of an independently powered redundant motor d r i v e . t h e vent doors and associated hinges, linkages, torque shafts, and gear boxes.
23 1

Three main factors determined the location o f the orbiter active vents. The f i r s t consideration was orbiter internal compartmentation which established isolated volumes o r Compartments requiring dedicated vents. The second factor was sensitivity of the internal compartment pressures, d u r i n g ascent and descent venting, t o the external aerodynamic pressure. The external pressure varies greatly depending on the velocity, yaw and angle of attack of the vehicle. In order t o reduce the internal compartment pressure sensi t i v i ty t o fluctuations i n the external pressures, regions of the orbiter were identified where the external aerodynamic pressures remained relatively constant despite changes in yaw and angle of attack. The orbiter active vent locations were located i n areas exhibiting the l e a s t sensitivity to pressure variation a s illustrated i n the i s o b a r contour plot included as figure 2. Once the vent locations were established, the total required vent area was divided between t h e l e f t and r i g h t sides of the orbiter i n order t o reduce the compartment pressure sensitivity due to yaw. The t h i r d factor was the magnitude of the i nternal compartment pressures. The i nternal pressure w i 11 f o l l ow t h e local external pressure a t the vent port. Thus, i f i t is desired t o have a low compartment pressure, the vents niust be located in a low external pressure region. For the orbiter, i t was desired to maintain a low pressure differential across the compartment external skin panels, so the compartment vents were located very close t o those compartment external s k i n panels. The three factors are mutually dependent and can be f u l l y understood only from a total vehicular viewpoint.
ORB1 TER COMPARTMENTS
The e a r l y v e n t i n g d e s i g n goal o f t h e orbiter was t o minimize the effect on compartment pressure due to minor changes i n vent or leakage areas, and due t o trajectory parameter variations such as angle of attack and angle o f sideslip. Because o f the different types of venting volumes, three different vent system designs were used on the orbiter. These three types o f vent compartments are the sel f-vented, passive-vented, and control-vented compartments. The self-vented conipartnients consist of the nose cap, body flap, and wing leading edges. The venting area requirements f o r these compartments are provided by intentional gaps between the reinforced carbon-carbon panels. The elevons, rudder/speedbrake and window cavities comprise the orbiter passive-vented compartments. These Compartments are vented through passive vents w i t h self contained heat sinks which absorb thermal energy from the hot reentry gases to m a i n t a i n compartment temperatures a t low levels. The remai n i ng orbiter compartments are the control vented compartments which are vented through the active vent doors. These vent doors are opened and closed during f l i g h t t o provide the required vent areas when needed, and by closing d u r i n g entry, they prevent the ingestion of hot gases into the coriipartnients. A schematic diagrani o f the orbiter vehicle Compartments i s illustrated i n figure 3.

232

VENT SIZING --Very e a r l y o r b i t e r venting a n a l y s i s e s t a b l i s h e d the vent s i z i n g c r i t e r i a based on t h e volume o f a i r vented and the d e s i r e t o m a i n t a i n a low d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure loading across t h e compartment bulkheads and s k i n panels. The i n i t i a l s i z i n g c r i t e r i a f o r t h e a c t i v e vent p o r t s was e s t a b l i s h e d as 0.06 square inches o f vent area per cubic f o o t o f compartment volume t o be vented. A s i m i l a r vent area c r i t e r i a had proven successful i n venting the second stage o f t h e Apollo/Saturn This number was a r r i v e d a t by determining t h e maximum d i f f e r e n t i a l launch vehicle. pressure t h a t would e x i s t i n a Compartment of one cubic f o o t volume w i t h various vent areas. These cases were analyzed w i t h the venting analysis d i g i t a l computer program f o r a t y p i c a l ascent and descent t r a j e c t o r y , and the r e s u l t s from t h e various cases ( p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 4) showed t h a t very small vent areas r e s u l t e d i n l a r g e d i f f e r e n t i a l pressures w h i l e smal 1 d i f f e r e n t i a l pressures would occur f o r l a r g e vent areas. The curve i s nonlinear f o r the area-to-volume r a t i o s presented and shows t h a t f o r ma11 area-to-volume r a t i o s , minor changes i n vent area cause very l a r g e changes i n d i f f e r e n t i a l pressures. Thus, t o minimize t h e compartment d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure loading across the e x t e r n a l s k i n panels as w e l l as t o reduce t h e s e n s i t i v i t y due t o vent area changes, an ascent vent area design c r i t e r i a o f The 0.06 square inches per cubic f o o t of compartment volume was established. descent vent area c r i t e r i a was e s t a b l i s h e d as 0.03 square inches per cubic foot. F o r r e l i a b i l i t y and mechanical s i m p l i c i t y , the o r b i t e r descent vent area t o This c r i t e r i a compartment volume r a t i o was e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e l a r g e r ascent value. automa t i c a l l y gave the r e s u l t i n g o r b i t e r vent system t h e capabi 1it y t o w i t h s t a n d l a r g e v a r i a t i o n i n compartment leakage areas and a l s o t o withstand any s i n g l e f a i l u r e of the electromechanical vent door t o operate properly.

VENT ---

SYSTEM OPERATION TIMELINE

During t h e e v o l u t i o n o f the o r b i t e r , the a c t i v e vent system o p e r a t i o n t i m e l i n e has changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Due t o t h e i n h e r e n t f l e x i b i l i t y t h a t was i n i t i a l l y designed i n t o the system, the o r b i t e r vent system has adapted t o these changes i n operations and requirements w i t h very l i t t l e impact t o t h e system software o r t o the r e s u l t i n g s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n t i a l pressures. For t h e STS-1 f l i g h t , since t h e r e was no payload, i t was decided t o open a l l vents p r i o r t o l i f t - o f f i n o r d e r t o measure t h e i n t e r n a l a c o u s t i c l e v e l s and a l s o t o provide p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t vent doors f a i l i n g t o open d u r i n g ascent. The measured acoustic l e v e l s were a l l below t h e payload bay d e s i g n c r i t e r i a and t h u s , the nominal a s c e n t v e n t door operation i s to v e r i f y that all vent doors a r e f u l l y open p r i o r t o i g n i t i o n o f the Space S h u t t l e main engines s t a r t . A l s o f o r t h e STS-1 f l i g h t , i t was decided t o n o t c l o s e the a f t fuselage vent doors from 80 t o 100 seconds a f t e r l i f t - o f f . This d e c i s i o n was made so t h a t gas sample b o t t l e s l o c a t e d i n t h e a f t fuselage could o b t a i n Compartment gas samples d u r i n g t h e t i n e p e r i o d t h a t the hydrogen r i c h engine exhaust gases were expected t o be ingested and thus, v e r i f y whether a p o t e n t i a l hazard r e a l l y existed. Subsequent a n a l y s i s o f these gas samples showed t h a t hydrogen gas e x i s t e d i n t h e a f t fuselage, along 'with a i r , b u t i n concentrations t h a t were s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the f l a m n a b i l i t y l i m i t s . Since the data measured d u r i n g t h e STS-1 f l i g h t showed no s i g n i f i c a n t hydrogen concentrations, t h e proposed ascent vent door management o p e r a t i on was never implemented. The nominal ascent vent door operation t i m e l i ne now v e r i f i e s t h a t a l l vent doors a r e open p r i o r t o engine i g n i t i o n . A l l vents were k e p t i n t h e i r f u l l open p o s i t i o n u n t i l j u s t p r i o r t o e n t r y a t which t i m e the vent doors were closed. The open vent area, w h i l e i n o r b i t , provides more than s u f f i c i e n t vent area

233

t o satisfy the thermal control subsystem molecular venting requirement t h a t the compartment pressure be below 5 x 10-5 torr w i t h i n 12 hours after launch. I n addition, leaving the vent doors open also provides some capability t o withstand subsystem gas leakages into the various compartments due t o line o r t a n k leaks. Prior t o entry, the vent docrrs were closed and were not reopened until the vehicle velocity was below 2400 feet per second. This normally occurs between 80,000 and 85,000 feet a1 t i tude. For maximum dispersed trajectories and worst case system measurement errors, the vent doors could open as low as 70,000 f e e t or as high as 95,000 feet. After landing, the vent doors are cycled t o their purge position and the post landing purge s t a r t s t o cool the vehicle internal structure and t o purge any hazardous gases t h a t m i g h t have been ingested d u r i n g descent.
VENTING ANALYSIS

The orbiter internal compartments contain large volumes of gases which undergo considerable variations i n pressure during launch and reentry. I t i s necessary t o predict accurately the internal compartment pressure-time histories in order t o verify t h a t the differential pressure loadings across the compartment skin panels, bulkheads and doors are w i t h i n their structural capabi 1i ties. These pressures are readily predictable by computing the mass f l o w and energy transfer between compartments t h a t are connected by a wide range of conductor types. These conductors range from the simple orifices used t o model t h e Orbiter active vents, t o the pipes used i n the window cavity conditioning system venting analysis. Each type of orifice has i t s own experimentally derived flow discharge coefficient which i s used to correct the computed theoretical mass f l o w rate t o account for gas viscosity, stream contraction, orifice geometry and external gas cross-flow effects. The pipe flow analysis i s corrected similarly f o r pipe i n l e t and exit geometry resistance as well as for the resistance of pipe joints and bends by using pipe f l o w resi stance coef f i ci ents. The extensive computations required f o r an orbiter venting analysis are performed with the mu1 ticompartment venting computer programs t h a t were developed independently a t Rockwell International and a t the NASA Johnson Space Center. B o t h computer programs were developed and used extensively during the Apollo/Saturn program and then adapted for use in analyzing the Space Shuttle. The compartments can be treated a s adiabatic or be forced t o follow prescribed temperature o r heat transfer time histories. The gas flow through the pipes can be treated as adiabatic, isothermal or be subjected t o heat transfer due t o differences between the gas temperature and the pipe wall temperature. The pipe wall temperature can be specified as being constant o r vary with distance along the pipe and/or with time. The importance of accurate computations of compartment pressures cannot be overemphasized. This i s especially shown by the f a c t t h a t prelaunch venting analyses are an integral p a r t of the day o f launch structural loads evaluation program i n which c r i t i c a l structural loads and compartment pressures are computed based on the l a t e s t prelaunch f l i g h t trajectories. These trajectories are predicted by using the upper atmosphere wind profiles measured on the day of launch as well as the l a t e s t SRB bulk propellant temperatures and other parameters t h a t affect the ascent flight trajectory. If any of the computed loads or differential pressures exceed preset "red-1 i ne" values, structural analysts a t NASA JSC, Rockwell International and other support contractors are notified of the exceedances. Additional analysis and evaluation o f the orbiter structural capability are then conducted t h a t will result i n a recommendation t o NASA and Rockwell International upper management t o launch or t o hold t h e launch until the conditions improve.
234

---. VENTING

ANALYSIS DATA REQUIREMENTS

-

Before either the Rockwell or NASA JSC venting computer programs can be used t o predict the orbiter internal compartment pressure time histories, various d a t a must be obtained and transformed t o meet the computer program input requirements. These d a t a requi rements include the compartment volume, vent and leakage area definition, external aerodynamic d a t a bases, f l i g h t trajectory parameters and standard atmosphere tables.

For the orbiter, the compartment volumes, vent and leakage area definition i s
provided by the Rockwell Purge, Vent, and Drain Subsystern Group. This group monitors a l l activities t h a t could result in changes t o the compartment venting characteristics. The detailed definition o f vent and leakage areas for each orbiter compartmnt i s provided t o the venting analysts i n the format shown in figure 5. With these d a t a , the venting analyst can define the venting math model t o be used i n t h e compiiter program. I n addition, the locations of a l l external vent ports and structural leakage areas are used t o extract, from the total orbiter aerodynamic d a t a base, the local pressure coefficients as a function of Mach number, control surface deflection, angle o f attack and angle o f sideslip. This reduced set of aerodynamic d a t a i s referred t o a s the venting aero d a t a base. The required trajectory parameters include a1 t i tude, vehicle velocity, dynamic pressure, Mach number, ,angle of attack, angle o f sideslip, and the various control surface deflections, a l l as functions o f time. Once the altitude-time history i s defined, standard atmosphere tables are interrogated to obtain the ambient pressure and temperature time history profiles. The remaining trajectory parameters are used t o interrogate the venting aero d a t a base t o define the local pressure time history a t each external vent port and structural leakage area location.

235

ORlaNAk PA&: ’5: OF QU.”LX-i

VENTING ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

Once the necessary d a t a has been obtained, the orbiter internal compartment pressuretime histories are predicted by computing the mass and energy transfer between compartments that are interconnected by a wide range of conductor types. The analysis requires that the compartment volume and vent areas are shown as a function of time a s well a s the i n i t i a l pressure, temperature and gas composition f o r each compartment. The net flow of mass and energy from each compartment can then be accurately computed throughout the f l i g h t t h e interval specified. The computations performed i n the computer program are described briefly as follows: The analytical approach t o the venting problem i s to compute the compartment i n i t i a l conditions and then determine the rate of mass flow and energy transfer through the conductors. The actual mass flow r a t e t h r o u g h an o r i f i c e or pipe i s a function of the pressures t h a t exists on both sides of the orifices, the o r i f i c e geometry and the g a s thermodynamic properties. The theoretical mass flow rate through an o r i f i c e i s computed using the inviscid compressible isentropic onedimensional flow equation. The effects of viscosity, o r i f i c e geometry, and stream contraction are t h e n accounted for by using the appropriate experimentally derived discharge coefficient. The actual mass flow rate i s t h u s determined by multiplying the theoretical mass flow rate and the discharge coefficient. Using the i n i t i a l conditions specified for each compartment, the i n i t i a l gas mass and internal energy are computed w i t h equations 1 and 2:

u=rnCVT

(2)

The compartment pressure time history can be predicted by the repetitive solution o f a series of thermodynamic equations that determines the mass and energy transfer across each vent o r structural leakage area d u r i n g a very small time interval. The mass flow r a t e equation used for choked flow i s
v + l

or for unchoked flow:

The rate o f change for the internal energy i s computed as:

u = m Cp TT

. .

236

8

Equations 3 through 5 are solved for each vent port or leakage area and then the net mas!; flow and energy transfer f o r each compartment is computed by summing the individual changes, i .e.:

iT =

c nii
N
i=l

(7)

The compartment mass and internal energy can now be calculated a t t i m p = t t A t by a d d i n g the incremental change in mass and internal energy t o the values that existed a t time = t. That is:
m t + A t = mt +

iT t A

’t+At

= Ut

+

i, A t

The new compartment pressure and temperature are now computed using equations 10 and 11:

*

P = RT mt+At/V

Equation:; 3 through 11 are solved repetitively until some specified termination condition (such as time or pressure) i s attained. The predlction of compartment pressure reduces essentially to the accurate prediction o f mass flow and energy transfer rates between compartments, containing the same o r various gas mixtures, connected by orifices or pipes. These predictions have been shown, d u r i n g the Apollo/Saturn program, t o be very accurate when compared to flight data if a well defined venting math model is used together w i t h an accurate definition of the location and d i s t r i b u t i o n of the structural leakage areas, arid an accurate knowledge of the external pressure environments. For the Space Shuttle program, extensive structural 1 eakage testing was performed on the orbiter a.nd the results incorporated into the v e n t i n g math models, while the venting aero data bases were generated using the best Space Shuttle wind tunnel t e s t d a t a ava i 1ab1 e .

2 37

STRUCTURAL LEAKAGE JESTS

Unlike the dedicated vent port area whose dimensions and locations can be defined accurately, the structural leakage could only be estimated prior t o building the orbiter. After the orbiter was b u i l t , structural leakage testing was performed t o determine the structural leakage distribution and also t o verify t h a t the leakage was not concentrated in extremely h i g h o r extremely low pressure fields on the The t e s t s were conducted just prior t o r o l l o u t from the Orbiter orbiter. Processing Facility and were one of the l a s t ground tests performed prior t o flight. This ensured t h a t a l l equipment, seals, and hatches were installed in the actual f 1i g h t configuration. The structural leakage t e s t i s conducted by pressurizing a selected compartment and accurately measuring the gas mass flow rate required t o maintain the compartment pressure a t a constant level. Knowing the mass flow rate and the compartment pressure, the total structural leakage can be calculated. The next step i s t o pressurize a n adjacent compartment so t h a t the differential pressure across the bulkhead between the compartments i s zero. The gas mass flow rate i n t o the selected compartment i s accurately measured and a n w structural leakage area calculated. e The difference between the two calculated leakage area i s the bulkhead leakage area. After a l l bulkhead leakage areas are determined, any area n o t accounted for i s due t o leakage through the outer moldline (OML) f o r t h a t compartment.
The location and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the external structural leakage i s very i m p o r t a n t t o the venting analyst. This could not be measured b u t was estimated by locating the outflow locations while the compartment was pressurized. B feeling y the outflow locations, the p r o p o r t i o n of the outflow a t each location i s estimated. This proportion i s then used t o allocate the measured compartment OML leakage area and arrive a t the leakage area distribution t o be used i n the venting analysis.

Several of the orbiter structural leakage t e s t s conducted f o r the OV-102 vehicle were n o t the detailed leakage tests as previously described, b u t were instead a simplified version t o reduce the impact on rollout schedules and reduce costs. F o r these simplified t e s t s , only the compartment t o t a l leakage area was determined by pressurizing each compartment i ndi vidual ly. I t was assumed t h a t bulkhead leakage areas did n o t change from the detailed tests. Thus, any change was assumed to be due. t o OML leakage area changes. The location and distribution of the revised OML leakage area was again determined by locating where the purge gas was flowing out and estimating the proportions o f outflow. Results from a l l o f the OV-102 structural leakage tests have shown insignificant leakage area variations t h a t can be attributed t o infliyht loading. A l l o f t h e variations measured t o date can be explained either by the changes made t o the vehicle Hhile on the ground o r accuracy of the test.

238

ORB1 TER INFLIGHT VENTING
Prior t o the f i r s t orbiter f l i g h t , the only source of external pressure coefficient d a t a available for analyzing the compartment's external pressure environment was the e orbiter subscale wind tunnel tests. Any nw concept or s t u d y regarding the orbiter vent system (e. g . , vent doors management, doors failure, subsystem leakage) re1 ied heavily on the wind tunnel d a t a i n order t o predict the effects of any changes on the total orbiter pressure loading.
VERIFICATION OF VENT MATH MODEL .__----

I n order- t o j u s t i f y using the venting program results for ver fication o f the orbiter design d a t a , i t was important t o demonstrate t h a t the results adequately represented the vehicle pressure environment. During the o r b t e r approach and l a n d i n g t e s t (ALT) program, two absolute pressure transducers were located in the nose and i n a main landing gear compartment in order t o measu e the landing gear wheel well 'pressure environments. Comparisons were made between the analytical prediction and the measured d a t a obtained from the orbiter f i f t h free fliqht, and are shown as figures 6 and 7 . The comparisons show good agreement, w i t h some minor deviation which was attributed t o the fact t h a t the m a t h model used i n the ALT analysis d i d not account f o r leakage areas or interaction between adjoining compartments. Thus, the results were encouraging.
POST -- -.STS-1 ANALYSIS -

Once the f l i g h t d a t a from the f i r s t Space Shuttle f l i g h t had been received and reviewed, i t readily became apparent t h a t the preflight predictions differed considerably from the measured d a t a . This was true of a l l of the internal pressure measurements as well as the external pressures, and was dramatically evidenced by the considerable lofting variation in the ascent trajectory. Figure 8 shows the comparison between the STS-1 flight measured and the preflight prediction f o r the payload bay. The comparison is presented as the payload bay internal pressure relative t o ambient since an absolute pressure comparison does n o t readily show the variation between the d a t a or the areas of mismatch. The data comparison for the
o t h e r compartments showed a range of poor t o f a i r c o r r e l a t i o n .

The predicted values utilized t h e best reconstructed ascent trajectory, measured structural leakage areas, and the best available wind tunnel d a t a for the pressure coefficients, while the measured d a t a was corrected t o account f o r the transducer zero s h i f t by adjusting the d a t a t o t h e measured ambient pressure a t the time of lift-off.. As i s obvious from figure 8, there i s considerable differences i n the magnitude and the timing o f the peaks in the payload bay differential pressure. By a process of elimination of the variables i n the venting analysis, the external vent port pressure coefficients were quickly identified as causing the differences between the preflight predicted and the measured internal pressures. This conclusion was also consistent with the ascent trajectory lofting phenomena which was indic:ative of a major chanye in the external pressure ewironment. To t e s t this theory, the measured vent p o r t pressures were converted i n t o pressure coefficients for input; t o a revised venting analysis. Figures 9 through 12 show comparisons for the f o u r payload bay vent ports local pressure coefficients between the measured STS-1 flight d a t a and the baseline wind tunnel t e s t data. The differences between the measured and the d a t a base pressures a t the transducer locations are q u i t e large

239

i n some regions. Some of these differences can be attributed t o the plume effects which were improperly simulated i n the w i n d tunnel tests. The measured pressures for transducers on the a f t section of the vehicle were higher t h a n the predicted values. Another explanation for the significant difference between the measured and predicted wind tunnel t e s t data i s the scarcity of the wind tunnel t e s t points. Noted on figure 9 are the Mach numbers a t w h i c h the actual wind tunnel t est s were conducted. As can be seen, the wind tunnel t est correlates well with the measured data a t each of the supersonic Mach numbers tested. Other more localized pressure differences result from f u l l scale t o model boundary layer differences, pressure transducer 1 ine leakage a t the thermal protection system (TPS) t i l e/ st rai n isolation pad ( S I P ) interface, and influence of t h e vent mass o u t f l o w on nearby pressure transducers. These effects are localized and are definitely small when compared t o the pressure differences actually seen d u r i n g flight.
The measured base pressures were similarly converted i n t o pressure coefficients. Figure 13 shows the comparison between the f l i g h t measured d a t a on the orbiter base heat shield and the wind tunnel test derived predicted values. The comparison shows a considerable difference between the two d a t a sets which could be caused by the cold-flow plumes simulation d u r i n g the wind tunnel tests. The base pressure environment i s used i n establishing the design d a t a for the a f t fuselage and orbital maneuvering system (OMS) Pod base heat shields. Furthermore, the a f t fuselage and OMS Pod i n t e r n a l pressures are influenced by the base pressure due to the large concentration of leakage area i n the orbiter base around the engine seals and engine domes.

The results from the venting analysis using the measured vent p o r t and base heat shield pressure coefficients i s shown i n figure 14 f o r the payload bay. The remarkable change in the predictions from figure 8 which used wind tunnel data t o figure 14 which used f l isht measured vent pressures demonstrated conclusively t h a t the wind tunnel d a t a was i n error. All of the other orbiter compartments demonstrated similar improvements i n the analysis prediction correlation w i t h the measured d a t a . The vent analysis correlation has been improved even more by slight modifications to the f l i g h t measured vent p o r t pressure. T h i s slight modification accounts for some o f the errors included i n the measured pressure. Such as, vent gas outflow, t i l e penetration leakage and structural leakage. The vent outflow source o f error i n the measured pressure i s due to t h e f a c t t h a t the orbiter vent p o r t pressure measurements are, unfortunately, located either ahead o f , or behind the vent. Depending on the measurement location, the vent gas outflow can distort the measurement reading by causing a higher reading t h a n the actual pressure a t the vents i f the measurement is i n f r o n t o f the vent or a lower reading i f i t i s behind the vent. The readings from measurements located ahead o f the vent will be affected f o r short time periods d u r i n g f l i g h t and will be dependent on the mass flow r a t e o u t of the vents, the local v e l o c i t y perpendicular t o the vents and the distance of t h e pressure t a p from the vent. Measurements b e h i n d the vent will be affected anytime t h a t there i s vent ou;tflow.

240

Several o f the external pressure measurements had special penetrations through the 7PS tiles. These transducers had a t h i n glass tube t h a t provided the flow p a t h between the pressure sensor and the external location a t which i t was desired t o lrieasure the pressure. During t i l e pull testing t h a t was performed t o verify the t i l e b o n d i n g , t h e seal between the tube, S I P , and the t i l e were broken. Thus, the measured pressure was a combination of the SIP internal pressure and the external pressure” For most ascent, these two pressures are nearly the same due to the very r a p i d venting characteristics of the tile/SIP combination. The only time t h a t there i s a significant difference is when a steep pressure gradient or shock wave exists across the instrumented tile. Thus, even though there i s a t i l e penetration leakage effect for several of the external pressure measurements, the effect tends t o be evident for only short periods o f time and represents a small error source. The third deviation source i s actually more a correlation analysis procedure error rdther than an error i n the external pressure measurement. The only measured external pressure d a t a t h a t was available, and that was meaningful t o the vent correlation analysis, was t h a t measured a t the .vent ports which are located a l o n g the sides of the vehicle. The external structural leakage areas in the venting analysis continued t o rely on the questioned wind tunnel d a t a because there was no d a t a t h a t could be used t o update the structural leakage pressure coefficients. The ccirrel a t i on procedure adjusted the vent port pressure coeff ici ents i n order t o o b t a i n a better correlation between the predicted and measured compartment pressures. Thus, some o f the correction done t o the vent ports will actually tend to correct f o r the errors introduced i n t o the analysis due t o the continued reliance or1 wind tunnel d a t a f o r the structural leakage areas. The continued use o f wind tunnel d a t a f o r the structural leakage areas i s acknowledged as an error source b u t this i s considered t o have a minor effect on the predic ions o f compartment pres su re s

.

The fl i g h t derived vent port pressure coefficients were used t o predict the compartment pressures f o r Shuttle fl i ght s 2 through 5. I n a l l cases, the derived pressure coefficients have provided a much better corre a t i o n w i t h the measured f l i g h t da-ta than w i t h the wind tunnel pressure coefficients. Figures 1 5 t h r o u g h 18 show the comparison between measured and predicted f o r several o f the orbiter compartments utilizing the f l i g h t derived vent port pressure coefficients.
ENTRY CORREL --- - AT10 N

Un’like ascent, the compari sons between predicted and measured pressures for entry

has shown good correlation both for the internal and external pressure measurements. Coriipari sorts of several external pressure measurements are shown i n figures 19 t h r o u g h 23, and f o r several of the orbiter compartments a s figures 24 t h r o u g h 27.

24 1

RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

-

During the evolution of the orbiter vent system, several items were discovered t h a t are worthy of comment and are recommended for application t o future vehicles. The f i r s t of these i s to use large external vent areas. That i s , design f o r large vent area to compartment volume ratios instead o f small values of the ratio. Inherent i n this design i s the capability t o have wide v a r i a t i o n i n structural leakage areas and vent door operation failures w i t h o u t significantly changing the structural differential pressure loading. After a l l , i t i s the structural l o a d i n g t h a t i s important t o the vehicle and whatever can be done t o reduce i t s sensitivity due t o uncontrollable leakage areas and failures should be incorporated. Structural leakage testing should be planned for, and performed on, a l l new vehicles. Besides p r o v i d i n g much improved venting math models, structural leakage tests also verify the sealing integrity of the vehicle. I t also provides verification t h a t the necessary leakage or vent area does exists. A perfectly sealed (or close t o i t ) bulkhead or skin panel i s not necessarily good for structural loading consideration. For example, during the structural leakage verification t e s t performed on the second orbiter (i.e., OV-099), i t was found t h a t the leakage between t h e main wing box and the outboard elevons was f a r less t h a n t h a t measured on the f i r s t o r b i t e r . Based on the OFT f l i g h t correlation experience, the venting analysis updated f o r the OV-099 s t r u c t u r a l leakage areas i n d i c a t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l increase i n the wing rear s p a r differential pressure loading t h a t would exceed the design values. Additional vent area was provided in the OV-099 wing rear spar to reduce the predicted differential pressures t o the OV-102 values. Future structural leakage t e s t s will specifically check and verify t h a t a mininium o f leakage exists i n t h i s spar. The current orbiter structural leakage t e s t s could be improved by performing the tests a t higher pressures t h a n currently done, except t h a t the purge gas supply source i s currently the limiting factor. The higher t e s t pressures would provide a more accurate leakage area calculation a s well as permit a better identification o f the leakage location. Once the leakage t e s t i s performed, t h a t configuration should be maintained t h r o u g h o u t the flight. A structural leakage t e s t t h a t i s performed before seals are installed o r with nonflight a r t i c l e doors i s not meaningful and should not be accepted by the venting analysts unless a n accurate definition of the out-of-flight configuration i s provided. Granted, some items o f a nonflight nature will be required f o r the tests b u t these should be minimized as much as possible. Instrumentation location, especially on the external surface, i s very important and can cast doubt on the validity of the measured d a t a , such as happened w i t h the orbiter data. The pressure measurements which are located near the vent ports should either be located above or below t h e ports in order t o reduce the effect of the vent p o r t outflow on the measured pressures. The measurements should never be located behind the vent port as this yields a completely distorted view of the surface pressure distribution. Locations ahead o f the vent port are acceptable b u t there will be some period of time during which the vent outflow disturbance may cause a small error i n the reading. these readings will tend t o be slightly higher t h a n with the undisturbed flow. Another problem encountered with the orbiter pressure measurements was the quoted accuracy. Only total pressure transducers were used on orbiter 102 and these are quoted as being accurate t o within 5 percent o f full scale (i.e., 0.75 p s i ) . Some

242

0

of t h i s e r r o r was reduced by using i n d i v i d u a l c a l i b r a t i o n data f o r each transducer and b i i l s i n g t h e measured data t o account f o r t h e zero s h i f t . The p o t e n t i a l e r r o r i s s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t i n t r y i n g t o r e c o n c i l e the compartment pressure. This e r r o r i s e f f e c t i v e l y doubled when i! t o t a l pressure measurements are d i f f e r e n c e d t o determine the d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure e x i s t i n g across a bulkhead o r s k i n panel. F o r much o f the o r b i t e r i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e , t h i s i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n e r r o r i s as l a r g e as t h e bulkhead design pressure loading. The b e s t s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem i s t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure sensors across the various bulkheads and c r i t i c a l s k i n panels. T o t a l pressure measurements a r e s t i l l mandatory i n order t o d e f i n e the compartment pressure w h i l e d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure measurements are r e q u i r e d t o a c c u r a t e l y measure bulkhead loading. F o r t h e o r b i t e r program, t h e OV-102 v e h i c l e w i l l continue f l y i n g w i t h a f u l l compliment of t o t a l pressure measurements w h i l e t h e OV-099 v e h i c l e w i l l have a l i m i t e d number o f d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure sensors.
A problem w i t h t h e o r b i t e r a c t i v e vent system t h a t was i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e OFT f l i g h t s was due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e OMS Pod vent p o r t was l o c a t e d immediately behind t h e l a r g e r a f t fuselage vent. The problem w i t h t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s t h e same as t h a t discussed e a r l i e r concerning the l o c a t i o n of pressure measurements, namely t h a t the gas o u t f l o w from t h e f r o n t vent causes a low pressure environment across t h e r e a r vent. So i n s t e a d of both compartments being a t s i m i l a r pressures, t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e two pressures. This e f f e c t was e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e w i t h t h e OMS Pod since i t s vent was l o c a t e d j u s t behind the a f t fuselage vent. I t was a l s o seen t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t w i t h t h e forward fuselage due t o t h e o u t f l o w f r o m t h e f o r w a r d RCS vent. The i n f l u e n c e i s l e s s f o r the forward vents since these vents were angled i n s t e a d o f being d i r e c t l y behind and t h e l a r g e r v e n t was l o c s t e d behind the smaller one. For f u t u r e vehicles, i f vent p o r t s a r e t o be located c l o s e t o each other, one should be l o c a t e d above t h e o t h e r so t h a t the outflow from one vent does n o t impinge on the other.
CUNCLUS 1.0NS

-

The o r b i t e r a c t i v e vent system has shown i t s e l f t o be very adaptable t o t h e changing requirenients o f t h e Space S h u t t l e Program. The system i s capable o f w i t h s t a n d i n g vent door f a i l u r e s w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t l y impacting s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n t i a l pressure loading. The a c t i v e vent system i s designed such t h a t any s i n g l e f a i l u r e w i l l s t i l l p e r m i t proper o p e r a t i o n o f t h e system. Even w i t h two f a i l u r e s i n t h e same vent door system, t h e redundancy b u i l t i n t o t h e system would p r o v i d e adequate compartment Vent

area.
h r i ng t h e o r b i t e r OFT Program, several problems were encountered t h a t a f f e c t e d t h e o r b i t e r vent system and should be remembered when designing vent systems f o r f u t u r e vehicles. The b i g g e s t problem encountered was t h e l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e wind tunnel p r e d i c t e d pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e o r b i t e r measured pressures. Other minor problems encountered were w i t h t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e e x t e r n a l pressure transducers and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n accuracy.
Items t h a t had s i g n i f i c a n t , impact on t h e success of t h e o r b i t e r vent system i n c l u d e t h e i n i t i a l design requirement o f l a r g e vent areas, redundant vent paths and good The combination o f these items have r e s u l t e d i n a s t r u c t u r a l leakage testing. system t h a t lends i t s e l f t o accurate analysis.

243

F Z E -

r l I

j

1 3

PAYLOAD BAY

I

, -

LL
-__t

l

7

WING

UDb 1'111)

^.._.*.

Figure 1 . - Fctive vent door locations.

XII

n

Figure 2 . - Orbiter external pressure distribution.

244

ORlGgNAL PAGE F S

OF

POOR QUALIW

FWD WING 6 (LH, RII)

WIHG'GLOVE

\

r- - - - - - 1 I
OMS/RCS POD
I

1-1

PASS I VE VENT

E m S t LTv V E N T E 0
Figure 3.- Space Shuttle orbiter compartmentation.

24 5

2.0
.r I n

a
l a

L
2
v1 v1

1.6

m

a J

1.2

a J

L

n
c,

.8

c
L

cr

E
m
@-

.4
I .Ol
1 .02

E
0

0

ii
I .03
1 .04

0

I .05

I
.06

I
.07

I
.08

I

1
.10

.09

Area-to-volume r a t i o , i n / f t
( a ) Ascent.

2

3

2.0

Nominal e n t r y trajectory

1.6

1.2

Design
.3
I
I I

Current basel ine

.4

I
I I

I
I
I
I

I

I

I

I

2 3 Area-to-volume r a t i o , i n / f t

( b ) Entry.

Figure 4.- Area-to-volume r a t i o curve.

246

3
4
5

1 5 . 4 IN: '65
144.01 IN' 169.10 I N Z

TOI'AI. 0 1 . 1 1 :.E,IMCiC

4 . 9 3 IN2
M M R S 6 V E N T S CLGSCI>

6

133 2.8

IN2

Figure 5.- OV-099 payload bay integrated vent model.

247

ANALYTICAL PREDICTION VS FLIGHT DATA

-

P a MSED 01 ot7 26. 1977 UL MTA Lm

0

to

60

60

w

1100

11m

(sa)

F i g u r e 6.- Orbiter n o s e gear i n t e r n a l pressure.

MALYTltAL PREDICTIOW - FLIGHT MA VS T
1
h

Iyo

Y1C

Figure 7.- O r b i t e r main g e a r i n t e r n a l pressure.

248

a7

0.6

h

0.5

0.4

03

0.1

0.1

0.0

9t .

Figure 8.- STS-1 correlation results. Payload bay t o ambient differential pressure.

I.O,,,/

(WSID

VO7P91201
/ . ,
, / /

,,,

=

81.469

0.e

--

0.6

0.4

0.2

MACH NUMBER

Figure 9 . - STS-1 o r b i t e r vent port 3 external pressure comparison.
249

M H WnQER C

F i g u r e 10. - STS-1 o r b i t e r vent p o r t 4 e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e comparison.

W H NUMBER

Figure 11.- STS-1 o r b i t e r vent p o r t 5 e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e comparison.
250

i

-

I

I

I

I L

W U 0

..

HACM M 3 E R

Figure 12. - STS-1 orbiter vent p o r t 6 external pressure comparison.

Figure 13.- STS-1 orbiter base external pressure comparison.

0.7-

0.6

-

- PREDICIP)

USING FLIGHT YEASLTRED PREsllRE DATA

Q

0.5-

a .

v)

z
n
~

0.3-

c
W

2

n

0.2-

4.1

1

I

1

I

I

0

10

20

30

40

50

80

70

80

1

@O

I

100

m

Po

1 (50

TIME I N SECONDS

F i g u r e 14.- STS-1 correlation results. Payload bay t o ambient d i f f e r e n t i a l

pressure u s i n g f l i g h t measured pressure d a t a .

Figure 15.- STS-1 correlation results. Payload bay t o ambient differential pressure using f l i g h t derived pressure d a t a .
252

r:vE :CC.:I

Figure 16.- STS-3 ascent correlation results. Payload bay to ambient differential pressure.

Figure 17. - STS-3 ascent correlation results. Aft fuselage t o ambient differential pressure.
253

<
1

Figure 18.- STS-3 ascent correlation r e s u l t s . t o ambient differential pressure.

OMS pod

X/LB

0.391

PHI

=

81.465

MACH NUXSi2

Figure 19.- STS-2 entry.
254

Orbiter vent p o r t 3 external pressure comparison.

X/LB

=

O.'CZ

'H!

=

82.31s

W U 0

U

MACH NUWE9

e

Figure 22.- STS-2 entry.

Orbiter vent p o r t 6 external pressure comparison.

Figure 23.- Orbiter base external pressure ccmparison.
255

(p1sIO

VOiFSI26Al

XILB

=

0.502

PHI

=

81.655

MACH Nil!3?5

9

Figure 20.- STS-2 entry.

Orbiter v e n t port 4 external pressure comparison.

tMSlD

VO7PO133Al

X/LB

=

0.573

PHI

=

81.71s

0.5

I .o

I .5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

.

.3

HAC+ NUCSR

Figure 21.- STS-2 entry.
256

Orbiter vent p o r t 5 external pressure comparison.

T I E CPCI

Figure 24.- STS-4 entry correlation results. t o ambient differential pressure.

Wing

T I R E (SECI

Figure 25.- STS-4 entry correlation results. A f t fuselage t o ambient differential pressure.
257

ORIGIME P X E 1%
OF POOR Q U A L l N

Figure 2 6 . - STS-4 entry correlation results. ambient di fferenti a1 pressure.

OMS pod t o

a
I J -

<

8

F'igure 2 7 . - STS-E entry correlation results. Payload bay t o ambient differential pressure.
258

DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE SHUTTLE IGNITLON OVERPRESSURE ENVIRONMENT AND CORRELATION WITH FLIGHT DATA

S. Lai Space Transportation and Systems Group Rockwell International Downey, California

ABSTRACT
The Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System (STS) launch v e h i c l e s a r e more complex than o t h e r launch v e h i c l e s . A comprehensive a n a l y s i s of the l i f t - o f f event i s r e q u i r e d so t h a t t h e responses of t h e v e h i c l e and payloads can be p r e d i c t e d . The t r a n s i e n t o v e r F r e s s u r e induced by i g n i t i o n of t h e e o l i d r o c k e t motors (SRM's) i s one of the c r i t i c a l design f a c t o r s a s s e s s e d f o r l i f t - o f f . The STS-1 i g n i t i o n Overpressure d e s i g n environment was developed from 6.4-percent scale-model t e s t s i n which t h e Tomahawk s o l i d rocket motors were used t o s i m u l a t e t h e s t a r t - u p p r o c e s s of the SRM's. The o v e r p r e s s u r e s measured during STS-1 l i f t - o f f were much more s e v e r e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . The reasons f o r t h i s anomaly a r e discussed i n t h i s paper. The 6.4-percent s c a l e model was redesigned and used a s a t o o l t o develop an e f f e c t i v e i g n i t i o n o v e r p r e s s u r e suppression system f o r STS-2 and subsequent f l i g h t s . Also presented a r e advancements i n subscale-model s i m u l a t i o n and t h e o r e t i c a l unders t a n d i n g of t h i s t r a n s i e n t o v e r p r e s s u r e phenomenon t h a t l e d t o t h e s u c c e s s f u l development of t h e f i x .
NOMENCLATURE

Boo

ambient speed of sound duct c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a
n o z z l e throat area

A
A* EO

energy r e l e a s e d during r o c k e t i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t

f

frequency s p e c i f i c enthalpy of r o c k e t motor chamber e m p i r i c a l c o n s t a n t p e r t a i n i n g t o j e t momentum e m p i r i c a l c o n s t a n t p e r t a i n i n g t o j e t mass

hC

Kf

K,
m

mass flow rate
t r a n s i e n t pressure

P
pm

ambient p r e s s u r e

259

AP pc P C
t

p r e s s u r e d i s t u r b a n c e , P-Pa r o c k e t m o t o r chamber p r e s s u r e
r a t e of change of chamber p r e s s u r e dPc/dt
time

T

temperature exhaust-gas v e l o c i t y d e n s i t y of exhaust gas a t ambient p r e s s u r e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s

e '

Few
Y T

t i m e i n t e r v a l of i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t
INTRODUCTION

During t h e s t a r t - u p process of a rocket motor, t r a n s i e n t p r e s s u r e waves are g e n e r a t e d t h a t propagate t o t h e r o c k e t ' s v i c i n i t y . The source of t h i s p r e s e u r e d i s t u r b a n c e i s t h e sudden displacement of ambient a i r by t h e combustion p r o d u c t s flowing from t h e rocket n o z z l e during i g n i t i o n transients. As the a i r is displaced by t h e i n c r e a s i n g flow r a t e of exhaust g a s e s , compression and expansion p r e s s u r e waves a r e generated. These p r e s s u r e waves propagate outward from t h e d i s t u r b e d r e g i o n and i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e launch f a c i l i t i e s and t h e launch v e h i c l e , r e s u l t i n g i n a s p a t i a l and time-dependent p r e s s u r e d i s t u r b a n c e . The p r e s s u r e d i s t u r b a n c e (AP) i s d e f i n e d as

AP(x,y,z,t)

= P(x,y,z,t)

- P,

(1)

where P ( x , y , z , t ) is t h e t r a n s i e n t p r e s e u r e a t l o c a t i o n x , y , z and time ( t ) , and i s t h e ambient p r e s s u r e . This p r e s s u r e d i s t u r b a n c e r e s u l t i n g from r o c k e t i g n i t i o n is c a l l e d i g n i t i o n o v e r p r e s s u r e .
The T i t a n and Minuteman weapon syetems, i n which t h e missiles were f i r e d from underground l a u n c h e r s , experienced high l e v e l s of o v e r p r e s s u r e d u r i n g the engineThe T i t a n I11 launch v e h i c l e , with two strap-on s o l i d s t a r t i n g t r a n s i e n t ( r e f . 1). r o c k e t motors, a l s o experienced a s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r p r e s s u r e environment d u r i n g l i f t - o f f , although t h e launch v e h i c l e used a surface-type launch pad ( r e f . 2 ) .

260

The STS launch vehicle employs two SRM's in addition to its liquid-fueled main engines. Thus, it was recognized early in the development program that the overpressure environment induced by the SRM ignitions should be considered for lift-off loads analysis. The prediction of the STS overpressure environment induced by the S M start-up process relied on the 6.4-percent scale-model test conducted at NASA's R MSFC Acoustic Model Test Facility (AMTF). Flight data measured during STS-1 liftoff indicated that the overpressure environment was much more severe than predicted. As a result, the vehicle responses at body flap, elevons, cargo bay, and crew cabin were excessively large. The 6.4-percent scale model was redesigned and then used a8 a tool to develop an effective ignition overpressure suppression systcm for STS-2 and subsequent flights. This paper identifies the causes of the STS-1 ignition overpressure anomaly and d:iscusses the advancements made after STS-1 that led to the successful development of a fix for STS-2 and subsequent flights. SUBSCALE-MODEL TESTING AND THEORIES 6.4-Percent Scale-Model SRM Ignition Overpressure Test

Because of the complexity of the ignition overpressure phenomenon, the prediction of the STS overpressure environment induced by the SRM start-up process relies on subscalelnodel tests. Conducting a dynamically similar subscalelnodel simulation of SRM ignition overpressure requires the subscale model to fulfill a set of scale parameters, as shown in table I. The Tomahawk motor was selected to simulate the SRM in the 6.4-percent scalemodel acoustic tests conducted at the AMTF. The Tomahawk motor was the best available production motor for matching nominal SRM characteristics (table 11). However, €or the subscale ignition overpressure test, in addition to the nominal featu.res, simulation of the motor start-up characteristics (primarily chamber pressure) was also important. Figures 1 and 2 show typical comparisons of the Tomahawk motor chamber-pressure characteristics with those of, the SRM' s during ignition transient. The maximum chamber-pressure rise rate (Pc> for the Tomahawk
motor is about 0 . 3 t o 0 . 5 of w h a t is r e q u i r e d , and the i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t

tharacteristic time (determined by the time interval between the f iret and second Pc maximum) for the Tomahawk motor is approximately twice what is required for proper simulation of the SRM ignition overpressure pulse amplitude and frequency. Thus, to predict the SRM ignition overpressure from the 6.4-percent scale-model tests, the subscale-model test results must be corrected to account for these differences. Broadwell and Tsu Theory The principal theoretical guidance available before the STS-1 flight was developed by Broadwell and Tsu to compute the rocket ignition overpressure for silo I n their analysis, the SRM launchers such a8 Titan I1 and Minuteman (ref. 1). constitutes a mass and momentum source at the silo (fig. 3 ) . The mass source generates compression waves into the launch and exhaust ducts. The momentum source generates a compression wave into the exhaust duct and an expansion wave into the launch duct.
26 1

The p r e s s u r e waves propagating from t h e source region are given by
2

ue i
(2)

The p l u s s i g n i s f o r t h e exhaust duct and t h e minus s i g n i s f o r t h e launch duct. The Subsequent propagation of t h e s e waves i s t r e a t e d by one-dimensional l i n e a r theory. Once t h e e m p i r i c a l c o n s t a n t s , K, and K f , are f i x e d i n t h e theory, t h e r e s u l t s a g r e e w i t h empirical o b s e r v a t i o n s made i n s i d e t h e T i t a n I1 and Minuteman launcher 6 . A p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s theory r e s u l t s i n

Since t h e Tomahawk motor i , maximum is approximately one t h i r d of what i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e SRM simulation, t h e STS-1 SRM i g n i t i o n overpressure environment was p r e d i c t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e 6.4-percent scale-model test d a t a by t h r e e . No attempt was made t o a d j u s t t h e frequency. Comparison of P r e d i c t e d and STS-1 Measured Data

As shown i n t a b l e 111, t h e overpressures measured during STS-1 a r e much more s e v e r e than p r e d i c t e d . As a r e s u l t , t h e o v e r p r e s s u r e on t h e o r b i t e r base h e a t s h i e l d (2.1 p s i d ) exceeded t h e design l i m i t of 1.32 psid. The frequency of t h e o v e r p r e s s u r e measured i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than predicted. More import a n t l y , t h e s t r u c t u r a l responses on t h e o r b i t e r elevons, body f l a p , crew cabin, and cargo bay a t l i f t - o f f were excesaive. Figure 4 compares t h e p r e d i c t e d and measured a c c e l e r a t i o n s i n s i d e t h e crew cabin and cargo bay. The a c c e l e r a t i o n s measured i n s i d e t h e cargo bay are considered unacceptable t o t h e remote manipulator system and many f u t u r e payloads.
Reconstruction of t h e STS-1 l i f t - o f f events based on t h e f l i g h t d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t , t h e SRM i g n i t i o n overpresaures were t h e major cause of e x c e s s i v e v e h i c l e responses. Therefore, t h e 6.4-percent scale-model test program was quickly designed and conducted t o e v a l u a t e v a r i o u s p r a c t i c a b l e f i x concepts for t h e launch pad t o suppress t h e i g n i t i o n o v e r p r e s s u r e environment f o r STS-2 and subsequent flights.
As shown i n f i g u r e s

1 and 2, t h e l e f t and r i g h t SRM i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t s f o r

STS-1 a r e almost i d e n t i c a l ((3 m i l l i s e c o n d s time l a g ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, when two Tomahawk motors were f i r e d during each t e s t , t h e i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t t i m e l a g between t h e motors was a s long a s 150 m i l l i s e c o n d s ( f u l l - s c a l e e q u i v a l e n t ) , even though t h e f i r i n g commands f o r t h e two motors w e r e issued simultaneously. This

u n c o n t r o l l a b l e i g n i t i o n t r a n s i e n t t i m e skew between t h e Tomahawk motors r e s u l t e d i n d r a s t i c d i s t o r t i o n of t h e waveform and t h e amplitude of overpressures measured during t h e 6.4-percent scale-model t e s t s ( a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g . 5 ) . Furthermore, t h e s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s of t h e overpressures on t h e o r b i t e r model were a l s o d i s t o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e f l i g h t d a t a measured during STS-1.

262

Two Tomahawk motors were also used to simulate the ignition overpressure environment induced by the two strap-on SRM's in the 7.5-percent scale--modeltests I of the Titan 111 used to support STS studies. The Titan ; 1 SRM Pc maximum is approximately equal to 7 . 5 percent of the Tomahawk motor Pc maximum. Therefore, the overpressures measured during these 7.5-percent scale-model tests should be approximately equal to those measured at Titan 111 lift-off. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the overpressures measured at Titan 111 lift-off are about. two to four times greater than those measured during the 7.5-percent scale-model tests (ref. 2 ) . Again, this discrepancy is believed to be a result of the relatively large mismatch of the ignition transients between the two Tomahawk motors used in the tests. Redesign of 6.4-Percent Scale Model Difficulties associated with the 6.4-percent scale-model testing cast some doubt on the value of using the Tomahawk motor as a tool to develop the SRM ignition overpressure suppression system. To overcome the problems associated with the Tmahawk motor ignition transient uncertainties, the 6.4-percent scale--modeltest was redesigned after STS-1 (ref. 3 ) . Instead of firing two Tomahawk motors during each test, only one motor was used. A smooth flat plate, called a splitter plate, was placed in the center between the left and right sides of the vehicle, extending above and below the mobile launch platform (MLP), as shown in figure 6. The interactions of the incident waves and reflected waves from the splitter plate simulated two SRM's with identical ignition transients firing simultaneously. Figure 5 illustrates a typical comparison of the overpressure wave characteristics measured during the redesigned test with splitter platelsingle-uotor-firing configuration and those measured during previous tests using dual-motor firings. The redesigned model tests provided overpressure data with larger amplitudes and higher signal-to-noise ratios. Ried's Scaling Relationship Meanwhile, efforts were devoted to investigating the mechanism of the overpressure formation and its propagation characteristics. While there are m a n y

fruitful results from various investigators, this paper describes only Ried's formulation because of its engineering application in bridging the gap between subscale test data and flight data. SRM start-up times are characteristically short. For the Tomahawk motor, the start-up time is about 0.05 sec, while the SRM start-up time is approximately 0.35 sec. The fast start-up resembles an explosion, and the ignition overpressure can be analyzed in this way. Ried considers the SRM ignition overpressure phenomenon analogous to the blast-wave phenomenon whereby the energy is released instantaneously (ref. 3 ) . Therefore, the overpressure (AP) is related to the energy ( , released during the start-up by E)

where VA+B is the affected volume, as shown in figure 7.

263

For a rocket motor, the total energy released during start-up is determined by

where T is the start-up time €or the rocket motor, hc is the enthalpy of the gases in the combustion chamber, and A* is the nozzle throat area. The ignition overpressure for one-, two-, and three-dimensional flow fields can be expressed, respectively, as
AP

-m am
A*

(6)

(7)

AP

-

Jh,($,I2
a3fDpc

STS-1

OVERPRESSURE RECONSTRUCTION THROUGH 6.4-PERCENT
SCALE-MODEL TESTS

To identify a fix that could be implemented to suppress the overpressure environment on STS-2, it was important to demonstrate that the results from the redesigned 6.4-percent scale-model test adequately represented the full-scale vehicle overpressure environment. Typical Tomahawk motor combustion chamber pressure characteristics are shown in figure 8 . Typical overpressure waveforms measured during the 6.4-percent scalemodel tests representing the STS-1 launch pad configuration are illustrated in figures 9 and 10. The SRM chamber pressure characteristics measured during STS-1 are shown in figures 11 and 12, and the typical overpressure waveforms measured on the orbiter base, the lower surface of the orbiter fuselage, and the upper surface of the orbiter fuselage are depicted in figures 13, 14, and 15, respectively. The pressure waveforms measured on the 6.4-percent scale model are similar to those measured during STS-1. The overpressure wave period derived from this model is approximately twice that measured during STS-1. Examination of the difference in chamber pressure characteristics between the Tomahawk motor and the SRM shows that the characteristic time for the Tomahawk is also twice what is required for proper simulation of the SpM. Therefore, to predict the SRM overpressure pulse frequency (f) based on the 6.4-percent scale model, the following relationship can be used:

264

Correlations of Overpressure and Pc

i,, whereas Ried' s theory indiBroadwell and TBU'S theory implies that AP catee A P (P,)2/P, for a three-dimensional flow field. Thus, the magnitude of overpressure and the Pc can be expressed by the general relationship
AP

-

-

-

(P,)m

(10)

when, m represents the slope in a log-log scale plot of A P versus ic. Note that the I, maximum for STS-1,was approximately 8,900 psi/sec. The equivalent ? 6.4-percent scale-model P maximum for STS-1 is 139,000 psi/sec. Figures 16 and 17 , suggest that A P ( i C l 2 is a reasonably accurate approximation.

-

Overpressure Wave Attenuation When the overpressure waves propagate outward from the source, the magnitude of each wave attenuates. The attenuation of these waves can be described by the general relationship A P = C X-m (11)

where m is dependent on the geometry involved and the strength of the waves, X is the distance from the source, and C is a constant. When the magnitude of a wave is large enough to classify the overpressure as a blast or strong compression wave, the exponent m equals 3. For a weak pressure wave, m equals 0, 0.5, and 1 for one-,. two-, and three-dimensional wave propagations, respectively. The overpressure wave attenuation characteristics observed for STS-1 and the 6.4-percent scale-model tests simulating the STS-1 launch pad configuration are depicted in Figures 18 and 19. The 6.4-percent scale-model test data were adjusted by the AP (P,)2 relation. These data show that the overpressure wave attenuation characteristics approach those of a three-dimensional weak pressure wave propaga-

-

tion as the overpressure waves approach the nose'regions of the Space Shuttle.

These data also demonstrate that the attenuation characteristics and the distribution of overpressure measured on the 6.4-percent scale model are similar to the data measured in flight. When corrected €or the Pc discrepancy between the model and the SRM by the A P , relation, the magnitudes of overpressure derived from the 6.4-percent scale-model test approximate the magnitudes measured during STS-1. This suggests that, in a subscale-model ignition overpressure test, the splitter platelsingle-motor-firing configuration is the correct approach €or simulating the dual-motor launch vehicle ignition overpressure.

265

STS-2 FIX AND RESULTS The overpressure suppression system developed f o r STS-2 c o n s i s t e d of a water i n j e c t i o n system and water trough covers i n t h e S M exhaust holes. For each SRM, R t h e water i n j e c t i o n system ( f i g . 20) i n j e c t e d a t o t a l of 378,540 l i t e r s (100,000 g a l ) of water p e r minute a t two e l e v a t i o n s below t h e nozzle e x i t plane. The i n i t i a l v e l o c i t y of t h e water j e t w a s approximately 9.14 m/sec (30 f t / s e c ) . The R primary purpose of t h i s water i n j e c t i o n was t o quench t h e S M exhaust plume, The water troughs, a s shown i n f i g u r e 21, were f i l l e d with a 30.48-cm (12-in.) depth of water, covering t h e S M exhaust h o l e a t t h e nozzle e x i t plane level. There w a s an R opening of approximately 5.01 m2 (54 f t 2 ) surrounding t h e SRM nozzles f o r l i f t - o f f clearance. The purpose of t h e water troughs was t o block t h e overpressure wave p a t h and t o absorb the wave energy. The water troughs were made of f a b r i c t h a t could be burned e a s i l y without t h e t h r e a t of hard d e b r i s impact on t h e thermal p r o t e c t i o n system t i l e s .

A t y p i c a l comparison of t h e Overpressure measured during STS-1 and -2 is shown i n f i g u r e 22. Figure 23 shows a t y p i c a l comparison of t h e STS-1 and -2 v e h i c l e responses t o o v e r p r e s s u r e waves. STS-2 overpressures and v e h i c l e responses were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less t h a n t h o s e of STS-1. As i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 24, t h e o v e r p r e s s u r e suppression system provided an o v e r a l l reduction of 50 to 80 p e r c e n t in t h e amplitudes of t h e o v e r p r e s s u r e wave measured on t h e o r b i t e r . F i g u r e 25 shows t h a t t h e p r e d i c t e d STS-2 overpressures are approximately 30 t o 70 p e r c e n t h i g h e r than measured. However, t h e p r e d i c t e d magnitudes of STS-2 overpressure a r e 0.05 t o 0.12 p s i higher than measured and a r e similar t o a c c u r a c i e s obtained from t h e test f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e STS-1 overpressure environment.
CONCLUSIONS
STS-1 p o s t f l i g h t d a t a a n a l y s i s revealed an anomaly i n SRM i g n i t i o n overp r e s s u r e t h a t w a s much more s e v e r e than p r e d i c t e d . The cause of t h i s anomaly w a s a t t r i b u t e d t o u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s u b s c a l e s i m u l a t i o n due t o t h e n o n r e p e a t a b i l i t y of t h e Tomahawk motor s t a r t - u p process and l a c k of a n a l y t i c a l understanding of t h i s t r a n s i e n t phenomenon induced by rocket i g n i t i o n .

The s p l i t t e r p l a t e / s i n g l e m o t o r - f i r i n g s i m u l a t i o n technique developed a f t e r STS-1 r e s u l t e d i n improved d a t a q u a l i t y compared t o t h e previous technique of
f i r i n g two motors during each t e s t . This technique a l s o reduced t h e complexity and c o s t of conducting t h e tests. R i e d ' s s c a l i n g r e l a t i o n , derived from t h e threedimensional blast-wave theory, was shown t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e STS Eastern T e s t Range type of launch pad c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . By using t h e s p l i t t e r p l a t e / s i n g l e motor-firing s i m u l a t i o n technique i n conjunction with Ried's s c a l i n g r e l a t i o n , t h e STS-1 o v e r p r e s s u r e environment w a s a c c u r a t e l y r e c o n s t r u c t e d with t h e 6.4-percent scale model.

266

An effective overpressure suppression system has been developed for the STS Eastern Test Range launch pad through 6.4-percent scale-model tests. A similar system is being developed for the Vandenberg Air Force Base STS launch mount. The advancements made in the subscale simulation technique and analytical understanding of the transient phenomenon of rocket ignition should result in improvements in the design of future space transportation systems. REFERENCES
1.

Broadwell, J. E , and C. N. Teu: An Analvsis of Transient Pressure due to . .Rocket Startinn in Underground Launchers. Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., 7103-0028-MU-00 (June 1961). Walsh, E. J., and P. M. Hart: Flight-Measured Lift-off Innition Over.pressure--A Correlation With Subscale Model Tests. A M Paper 81-2458.

2.

3.

. Lai, S.: 6 4 Percent Scale Model SSV SRM Innition OverDressure Testinn for .STS-2. Vol. 11. Results of Analvsis. Space Systems Group, Rockwell International, STS 81-0665 (Jan. 1982).
TABLE 1.-ROCKET MOTOR IGNITION OVERPRESSURE

SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Parameter Pressure Ve locity Density Temperature Flow rate Thrust Mach number
Length

Full Scale

Model

P
U

P
U

P

T m

P T
m x ~2 F x S2

F M
L A t

M
L X S

Area Time Frequency

A x S2

f

t x s f/S

267

TABLE 11.- TOMAHAWK AND SRM NOMINAL MOTOR

CHARACTERISTICS

Tomahawk Parameter Sea l e v e l t h r u s t ( k g - l b ) Weight flow ( k g / s e c - l b / s e c ) S p e c i f i c impulse ( s e c ) Chamber pressure ( p s i a ) Chamber temperature ( O R ) E x i t Mach number Expans ion r a t i o E x i t a r e a (m2-ft2) Specific heat r a t i o Nozzle e x i t 1 / 2 angle (des) Actual (6.4% S c a l e ) 4,808.16 19.86 242 1,200 6,413 2.95 6.66 0.036 1.18 15
(10,600)

F u l l - s c a l e Equivalent (100% S c a l e )

SM R

. 1,179,360
4,850.79 242 1,200 6,413 2.95 6.66 8.893 1.18 15

(43.8)

(2,600,000) (10,694)

(0.396)

(96.7)

1,202,040 4,989.6 240.9 840 6,178 3 .OO 7 -16 10.748 1.18 11.2

(2,650,000) (11.000)

(115.7)

TABLE 111.- PREDICTED AND MEASURED STS-1 IGNITION OVERPRESSURE

O r b i t e r Coordinate System

Predicted Overpressure
(psi)

STS-1 Measured

Measurement No.
~~

X-orb 1534.1
407.2

Y-orb

Z-orb

Overpressure (psi)

VO8Y 9 96A 1 VO 8Y9202A V08Y 92048 VO8Y9206A VO BY 9207A VO 8Y921 OA

532.1

373.4
499.3
546.3

-84.4 -8.9 0.o -5.1 -9.5 -104.1

290.0 436.7 500.0 290 .O 280.0 419.9

0.1790 0 .lo50 0.1080 0 .lo50 0.1070 0.1090

1.9 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.77 1.05 0.9 2.1 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.6 0.3

VOBY 94028
VO 8Y9404A VOBY 9681A VO 8Y 9686A VOBY 9687A
V08Y9734A V08Y 9735A V08Y9772A ~ 0 8 ~7 4 ~ 97

1281.4 1284.5 1410.7 1499.6 1340 .O

43 . -6.0 -115.4 -2.4 -125 .O
-379.0 -363.7 -33 .O -10.0

500 .O 260 .O 336.5 384.9 470 .O
315.7
292.8

0.1480 0.1490 0.1620 0.1730 0.1540
0.1540 0.1510 0.1730 0.1950

1342.1 1317.7 1498.4 1638.4

568.5 795 .O

268

ORIGINAL PAGE W OF POOR QUALITY
1,200

STS - 1 SRM CHAMBER HEAD - END
1,000

TOMAHAWK MOTORS

TEST

800
p,: hsil

P116 - 075 - 020,

600

400

200
P116 075

-

- 027
0.4

,

‘0.0

0.1

0.2

03 .

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

t

(sed (ZERO TIME = 8,856,003.9)

Z (t/o.oM) (sec)

Figure 1.- Comparison of SRM and Tomahawk motor chamber pressure.

STS - 1 sRni CHAMBER HEAD - END 10,ooc

TOMAHAWK MOTORS
. I

-I

0.09 sec

I-

SCALE FACTORS

P ,

= (pCrea,

0.064

t = (‘real

time) I 0.064

8,00C

k 0 . 1 7 sec-

I TEST116

116 075 - 027,

w 0

116 - 075
6,000

B V
0 0 ,

- 075 - 019

- 020.

4,000

2.000

0
0

I

I

I

I

0.1
t

0.2

03 .

0.4

0.1

0.2

(sed

03 . c (t/O.064) (secl t

0.4

0.5

Figure 2 . - Comparison of S M and Tomahawk motor chamber pressure r i s e rate. R

269

CONTACT SURFACE LAUNCH DUCT EXHAUST DUCT

-t
MASSGENERATED COMPRESSION WAVE AND MOMENTUM-GENERATED EXPANSION WAVE

MlXlNGREGlON

~ 1 MASS- AND MOMENTUMGENERATED COMPRESSION WAVES

Figure 3 . - Ducted launcher control volume.

ACCELEROMETER NUMBER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LOCATION X, (INCH)
511 511 825 974 974 973 1294 1294 1294

DIRECTION
NY NZ NZ

MEASURED ACCELERATION (9)
0.19

PREDICTED ACCELERATION
(9)

3.5
2.8 2.9 2.9
0.4

NZ NZ NY NX NY
NZ

2.1 0.25 1.25

i
I

0.87 1.43 1 .a5 1.75 1 .a3 0.45 2.41 0.66 0.95

Figure 4.- Predicted and measured STS-1 l i f t - o f f

accelerations.

27 0

o,,
I n P
0,
-0.11 0.2[-

P027.156 DUALMOTOR FIRING

Of
I

ORIGINAL b POOR Q U A L l n

o
P027.160 DUALMOTOR FlRlNQ

SKEW TIME: 4 MS (62 MS FULL SCALE)(

n
a -0.1-0.21

P075.019 SINGLE-MOTOR FIRIN WITH SPLI'TTER PLATE

P

I

0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 5.- Effects of ignition transient mismatch on overpressure wave characteristics.

NOTE

SIMULATE SIMULTINEOUS IGNITION OF I W O MOTORS
WITH IDENTICAL IGNITION T S A N S I L N T I

Figure 6.- Post STS-1 6.4-percent scale model arrangement.

27 1

ORlGilNAL PAGZ OF POOR QUALITY

-----

F i g u r e 7.- Blast wave a n a l o g y of i g n i t i o n o v e r p r e s s u r e phenomenon.

zOOti,
0

I

0.010

I I 0.020

I I I 0.030 0.040

80,000

7o.oooc

4

0.012 ? 0.003 SEC

0.010

0.020
t

0.030

0.040

(a sl

F i g u r e 8.- Chamber p r e s s u r e and chamber p r e s s u r e r i s e r a t e f o r Tomahawk motor ( t e s t no. P116-075-019).

272

t

I

I

0 -0.2

0.2

F5
rr

1

I

I

I

I

!

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
t (set)

Figure 9.- Typical o v e r p r e s s u r e wave c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on lower s u r f a c e of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e ( t e s t no. P116-075-019).

F11 Ap(pri)

0

-0.5

-

----J&+v -

Figure 10.- T y p i c a l o v e r p r e s s u r e wave c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on upper s u r f a c e of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e ( t e s t no. P116-075-019).

273

10.000

i
RIGHT SRM

8.900 7.800
6.700
5.600
p,

fpsi/secl 4,500

3,400

2,300
1,200 100

-1,000
0

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I 0.6

I

I
0.8

0.7

10,000
8,900 C

i

RIGHT SRM

-1,oool

0

I O.?

I 0.2

0.4 0.5 0.6 t (sed (ZERO TIME = 8,856,003.9)

I 0.3

I

I

I

0.7

I

0.8

I

Figure 12.-

SRM head-end chamber pressure r i s e rate for STS-1 f l i g h t data.

274

2.5

V08Y 9686A

2.0
1.5 1.o

0.5

-1 .o

-1.5

-2.0
-2.5

OQ

0.1

0.2

0 3 0.4 .

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

t (sec) (ZERO TIME

= 8,856,003.915)

Figure 1 3 . - STS-1 SRM i g n i t i o n overpressure on o r b i t e r base.

vm*

...

Y

R0.I

2.6

-

9iWA

2.5

-

MMA

20 1.6 1.0

20
1.5 VOBV9ZMA

1.0

P
5

0.5 0
-0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-

- 0.5 I !
1 ;
0 0 -0.5

a
-1.0
-1.5 -2.0
I I I I

-2.0
-26

o ai

0.3 0.4 t l t r l (ZERO TIME
0.2

-

I

I

I

J

a5

0.6

a7

0.8

-2.5 0

I
a1
t lsr)

I
0.2

1
0.3

I
0.4

. 0.6

I
0.6

I a7

I
0.8

8.85(1.0019151

(ZERO TIME

8.856.WJ.9151

Figure 1 4 . - STS-1 SRM i g n i t i o n overpressure on lower surface of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e .

275

VO8V9207A 1.o 1.o

V08Y94MA

I

-1.0

-

-1.51
-2.0 -2.51 0
1

8

1

!

I

:

I

0.1
t

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7 0.8

y-t!
-2.0 -

-2.5

0

0.1
t

0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

lrecl (ZERO 1lME = 8.856.003.9151

Irecl IZERO TIME =8.856.003.9151

Figure 15.- STS-1 SRM ignition overpressure on upper

s u r f a c e of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e .

2 00

INTERPOLATED
0

1.50

1.oc

0.40

o x
\P
0.20 -

0.10

Figure 16.- C o r r e l a t i o n of o v e r p r e s s u r e v e r s u s chamber p r e s s u r e r i s e r a t e . Lower s u r f a c e of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e .

276

2.00

-

INTERPOLATED

1.50 -

P.%?3F R QUALITY

AP
(psi)

0.30

-

2

3

4 5 1 7 8 9 1 0 15r104 3
Pc (psiltec)

Figure 17.- C o r r e l a t i o n of o v e r p r e s s u r e v e r s u s chamber p r e s s u r e r i s e r a t e . Upper s u r f a c e

of o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e .

3.0
2.0

-

SOLID SYM STS-1 OPEN SYM 6.4% MODEL

.t a
4

i


’.O

ORBITER LOWER SURFACE

[
UPPER SURFACE AP-Xrn

m=O
m = -0.5 m = -1

1-D WAVE PROPAGATION

2-D WAVE PROPAGATION

3-D WAVE PROPAGATION

0.3 I

AP ON 6.4% MODEL ADJUSTED BY AP TO REFLECT FULL-SCALE SRM
I
I
I

-

(bc)2

I

I

1 1 1 1

I

F i g u r e 18.- Comparison of o v e r p r e s s u r e s measured on STS-1 and r e c o n s t r u c t e d from 6 . 4 - p e r c e n t s c a l e model t e s t .

277

3.00
2.0

AP ADJUSTED BY A P a (bc)2 TO REFLECT FULL - SCALE SRM

r7Tmd?Jr., - n P T

;925

-

> *al.,mfi*f

.

P T
r J

-E B
LL

1.0

-

-

AP

- xm
1-D WAVE PROPAGATION 2 - 0 WAVE PROPAGATION 3 - 0 WAVE PROPAGATION

rn=O

rn = -0.5
rn = -1

9

0.3
*

0 ET LOWER SURFACE V ET UPPER SURFACE 0 SRB LOWER SURFACE

0
I

SRB UPPER SURFACE
I
I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

1000

2000

30 crn
112 in.! D I A

15 cm

!6 m.) D I A

30 crn
112 I I DIA n

)\ *

24cm 19.75 in.t

F i g u r e 20.-

STS-2 water i n j e c t i o n system.

278

TO W

E HOLE

30 cm 112 in.) DIA PIPE

SRB AFT SKlR

'

f '

_._... . .. . * -. , .L
Q

.

I

.

I

:-I

-,

NEW
WILT

60 cm 124 1n.l DIA PIPE

30.4 cm 112 in.) DIA PIPE

60 cm 124 in.) DIA PIPE
ERB SUPPORT PORT 4.5cni 118 in.) DIAPIPE

j42

y I56 in.)

IZO BAGSISECONDARY HOLE)
ROCKET SKIRT <,\

NOZZLEEXIT/ PLANE 30cm112TYPm.)

' 74 C _ m c m
'iATER

12 (in.) TYP

LEVEL

SIDE VIE\V

Figure 21.- STS-2 water trough covers.

STS-1

'E
0 4

-2

-'-

1

0.

4 -1

-2

.
I
I I

-3

I

I

I

I

279

3
2

cn

z

N

1

0
-1

N

-8

*:TS.2 1r 0

1 (WITH OVERPRESSURE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM)

T

z

-1
L
I
1

1

Figure 23.-

Typical comparison of acceleration measured on STS-1 and STS-2.

o\

.
STS-1

\\/
\
0
-40

ORBITER

LOWER FUSELAGE

L

6 0.55

ORBITER UPPER FUSELAGE

-&$ 7
ORBITER

\

o 0.4a

0.3 0.2

LOWER FUSELAGE

STS.2
(WITH

-

SUPPRESSION SYSTEM)

OVERPRESSURE

0.11 100

I

I

200

300 400 500

I

t

1

1000

2 00

DISTANCE ABOVE NOZZLE EXIT PLANE (IN.)

F i g u r e 24.-

Comparison of overpressures measured on STS-1 and STS-2.

1.o

SOLID SYMBOL: STS.2 OPEN SYMBOL: 6.4% MODEL

0.5
0.4
C.3

E cn
a

5 n

0.2

ORBITER UPPER FUSELAGE
0.1

\

'.
1

AP ON 6.4% MODEL ADJUSTED BY AP a (6c)2 TO REFLECT FULL-SCALE SRM

0.05
D

I

I

I

I

200 300 400 500 1000 2( IO DISTANCE ABOVE SRM NOZZLE EXIT PLANE (IN.)

Figure 2 5 . - Comparison of predicted and measured overpressures on STS-2.

28 1

SPACE SHUTTLE ENTRY LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC COMPARISONS OF FLIGHTS 1-4 WITH PREFLIGHT PREDICTIONS
Paul 0. Romere and A . M i l e s Whitnah N A S A Johnson Space Center Houston, TX

AB S TRAC T The Space Shuttle orbiter flight test program has required the aerodynamicist to take a new approach in determining flight characteristics. A conventional flight test program of slowly and cautiously approaching more severe flight conditions was not possible with the orbiter. On the first four orbital flights, the orbiter entered the atmosphere at approximately Mach 29 and decelerated through the Mach range (the subsonic portion of flight had also been flown by another orbiter vehicle during the Approach and Landing Test Program). Certification for these flights was achieved by an extensive wind tunnel test and analysis program. The initial series of flights of the orbiter were heavily instrumented for the purpose of obtaining accurate aerodynamic data. The flight data derived from the entry Mach range provided comparisons between flight and wind tunnel derived predicted data in the areas of both aerodynamic Performance and longitudinal trim. The second and fourth orbital flights incorporated several maneuvers which were beneficial to the analysis of the hypersonic aerodynamic performance and the hypersonic longitudinal trim. NOMENCLATURE A b C ‘ cA ‘m
h

0

Area Wingspan . Proportionality factor for the linear viscosity relationship Axial force coefficient Pitching moment coefficient

-

temperature

h/b

IML

Altitude Ratio of altitude f r o m aft fuselage lower trailing edge wingspan Interface mold line Reference body length

t o

e

L/ D M

Lif t-to-drag ratio Mach number

283

Preceding page blank

MAC PUP0 4 Re

-

Mean a e r o d y n a m i c c h o r d Pulluplpushover Dynamic p r e s s u r e R e y n o l d s number b a s e d on L B Reference area Viscous i n t e r a c t i o n parameter, = C e n t e r of p r e s s u r e i n body l e n g t h

’REF

V‘n c
xcP’LB

-

J-c Re

Angle of a t t a c k , d e g r e e s Speedbrake d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e , d e g r e e s Roll angle, degrees Subscripts
m

Free stream
T e s t Facilities Abbreviations

AEDC ARC

Arnold E n g i n e e r i n g and Development C e n t e r Ames Research Center

Ca 1s p a n
HST

4 x 4 HS!JT
LaRC LTV NSWC

5-ft TPT

UPWT
16T

Calspan Corporation Hypersonic Shock Tunnel H i g h S p e e d Wind T u n n e l Langley Research Center LTV A e r o s p a c e C o r i i o r a t i o n N a v a l S u r f a c e Weapons C e n t e r 8-Foot T r a n s o n i c Tressure Tunnel U n i t a r y P l a n Wind T u n n e l 16-Foot T r a n s o n i c
INTRODUCTION

O b t a i n i n g f l i g h t t e s t d a t a o v e r a wide r a n g e of f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s t h r o u g h a t r a d i t i o n a l g r a d u a t e d f l i g h t t e s t program i s n o t e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e on a l a r g e , unpowered, g l i d i n g f l i g h t v e h i c l e T h e r e f o r e , a n e x t e n s i v e wind s u c h as t h e S p a c e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r . t u n n e l t e s t a n d a n a l y s i s p r o g r a m was u n d e r t a k e n t o p r o v i d e a h i g h Also, both the l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e a e r o d y n a m i c p r e d i c t i o n s . A p p r o a c h a n d L a n d i n g T e s t P r o g r a m (ALT) a n d t h e c u r r e n t o r b i t a l f l i g h t t e s t p r o g r a m h a v e b e e n s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n g l e of a t t a c k and c e n t e r of g r a v i t y l o c a t i o n t o a c c o u n t f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a b a s e , t h u s a s s u r i n g a minimum-risk f l i g h t t e s t program. The v e h i c l e s were e x t e n s i v e l y i n s t r u m e n t e d t o o b t a i n f l i g h t data. This approach r e s u l t e d i n both high-quality f l i g h t test data and a n e x t e n s i v e wind tunn,?l d a t a b a s e . Thus, t h e aerodynamicist has been g i v e n t h e u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y t o compare s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t p r e d i c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s w i t h f l i g h t d a t a o v e r an e x t e n s i v e r a n g e of entry flight conditions.
284

The Space Shuttle Program's first and third flights, designated Space Transportation System (STS-1 and - 3 1 , did not contain any specifically designed performance data extraction maneuvers; however, the second ( S T S - 2 ) and fourth (STS-4) d i d incorporate many data extraction maneuvers. Several involved pulluplpushovers ( P U P O ) and bodyflap pulses, which are most useful in the flight data analysis effort towards the steady-state aerodynamic performance, longitudinal trim characteristics, and control surface effectiveness. This paper presents an overview of the current analyses of the aerodynamic performance, longitudinal trim, and control surface effectiveness which have been conducted using S T S - 2 and - 4 flight data results. Those analyses were directed towards comparisons and correlations of flight data and predicted d a t a with emphasis on those areas in which differences were significant. SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS The physical characteristics of the Space Shuttle orbiter are illustrated in figure 1 . The bodyflap is the predominant longitudinal trim device, while the wing-mounted elevons are used €or longitudinal stability and as ailerons €or lateral trim and control. The vertical tail consists of the fin and a combination rudderlspeedbrake, with the speedbrake providing lift-to-drag ratio modulation during the terminal area energy management and the approach and landing phases o f the flight. Aft-mounted side-firing reaction control jets are used to supplement yaw stability from entry down to Mach 1.0. The Space Shuttle orbiter is designed to perform an unpowered, gliding entry from orbit at an angle of attack of 40 degrees, which is modulated depending upon crossrange requirements. A gradual pitchdown is initiated at Mach 14 and is completed at Mach 2 . From Mach 2 to touchdown, more conventional angles of attack, 3 t o 1 0 degrees, are flown. At the beginning of entry, downrange modulation is achieved by
periodically performing

roll r e v e r s a l s a c r o s s t h e p r e s c r i b e d g r o u n d

track.

STS-1 t h r o u g h - 4 e n t r y f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s are illustrated in

figures 2a through 2d. Aerodynamicilly, during the major portions of the flight from entry to touchdown, the vehicle is longitudinally and laterally stable. In certain flight regimes where the vehicle is statically unstable, the stability is artificially provided by the flight control system. The design concept of using a stability augmented flight control system has increased the need to accurately define the aerodynamic characteristics beyondthose €or a conventional aircraft development program.

285

PREFLIGHT PREDICTIONS

T h e preflight aerodynamic predictions' are built o n a foundation of 27,000 occupancy hours of wind tunnel testing. This testing program utilized state-of-the-art facilities, as seen in table 1.

.

In general, wind tunnel data cannot be used directly for prediction; the most valid set of wind tunnel results must be adjusted for unsimulated conditions. The major adjustments applied to the Space Shuttle wind tunnel data base involved corrections for nonsimulation of structural deformation, flow field parameters, and the profile drag due to thermal protection system roughness and minor protuberan'ces. T h e process of establishing the preflight predictions is discussed subsequently.
Experts from Langley and Ames Research Centers w e r e called u p o n to join with the prime contractor and the Johnson Space Center in a cooperative effort to establish the most valid set of wind tunnel tests results. These results were established through a team analysis effort in w h i c h the m o s t representative tests w e r e selected, scrutinized for blockage and sting effects, and integrated into an overall data base. The data base was then reviewed and approved by this team of experts. The traditional free-stream Reynolds number w a s selected for the
f l o w f i e l d _scaling parameter b e l o w Mach 15, w h i l e a viscous interaction

parameter (V;>

w a s utilized at higher Mach numbers.

Since the test

facilities were able to provide near-flight Reynolds number simulations over a large Mach number range (as illustrated in fig. 2d), n o corrections to the wind tunnel results w e r e required. A t lower Mach numbers, the traditional adjustments w e r e applied f o r Reynolds effect o n friction drag. Additional adjustments w e r e applied to the profile drag to account f o r the added roughness of the thermal protection system tiles and for minor protuberances which could not b e simulated o n the wind tunnel test models.

In the rarefied atmosphere above Mach 15, f ;

w a s selected as the

scaling parameter. This is appropriate when the boundary layer thickness becomes significant with respect to the shock stand-off distance.2 The selection w a s further based u p o n the assumption that simulation of the shock boundary layer interaction w i t h the flow o n the windward s i d e of the vehicle also provides adequate flight-to-windtunnel correlation for the lee-side flow field. An examination o f flight conditions with respect to this scaling parameter (fig. 2d), shows that no adjustments are necessary. The wind tunnel data were not adjusted for real-gas effects.

In general, no attempt w a s made to obtain a wind tunnel simulation o f the effects of structural deformation on the longitudinal aerodynamics through testing of an aeroelastic o r deformed model. Since at higher dynamics pressures ({I these effects
286

a

are significant, some adjustment to the wind tunnel data to account for structural deformation must be made to provide adequate estimates of the flight aerodynamics. The approach used to evaluate the aeroelastic effects is unqiue. These effects were derived using a sensitivity analysis performed w i t h the aid o f a structural1 aerodynamic analysis program. 3 ' 4 T h e program w a s u s e d to stiffen systematically various portions o f the vehicle structure ;nd evaluate analytically the effect of the stiffness changes o n the aerodynamics. The results indicated that the major longitudinal aeroelastic effects were produced by deformation of the elevon about its hinge line a s a ' r e s u l t of the aerodynamic hinge moments. T h e effect w a s modeled by combining a rotary spring constant, as determined f r o m vehicle loading tests, with wind tunnel derived aerodynamic hinge moment characteristics to produce an elastically deformed elevon deflection angle. The elastic elevon angle is subsequently used with the rigid aerodynamic characteristics in determining the vehicle longitudinal aeroelastic characteristics.

As a result of the Space Shuttle Program management's desire to desensitize the flight control system with respect to the aerodynamics, uncertainties (defined as variations) were provided for use w i t h the preflight predictions. These variations' are based upon historical predicted-to-flight differences of similar configurations and o n engineering judgement.
C O M P A R I S O N S OF STS-2 A N D - 4 FLIGHT T O PREDICTED DATA

The aerodynamic analyst is faced w i t h a dilemma in the comparison I n wind tunnel testing, which is the basis of the preflight predictions, the independent parameters are known precisely while the aerodynamics are questionable. In flight testing, the aerodynamics are known e x a c t l y , by definition, but the accuracy of the independent parameters may b e

of preflight predictions and flight data.

in q u e s t i o n .

To minimize

the

impact

of

t h i s dilemma, t h e

aerodynamic

comparisons were selected such t h a t errors in t h e flight-independent parameters are minimized. Lift-to-drag ratio ( L / D ) was selected for comparisons of predicted and flight aerodynamic performance since it is independent of flight dynamic pressure ( i i ) . A B may be seen in figures 3 and 4 , the preflight predictions agreed well w i t h flight LID above Mach 1. Below Mach 1 , the flight exhibited higher LID than predicted. At a Mach number o f approximately 21 during the STS-2 entry and approximately 1 2 during the S T S - 4 entry, pulluplpushover (PUPO) maneuvers w e r e executed in which angle of attack varied f r o m 32 to 4 5 degrees. During this maneuver, the only control surface movement involved that of the elevons to drive the vehicle through the angle-ofattack sweep from approximately 32 t o 45 degrees. Figure 5 presents the correlation of flight to predictd L I D €or the P U P 0 maneuvers. T h e correlation is excellent, with a maximum difference being
287

approqimately l-$ percent. T h e predicted variations i n t h i s region are approximately 10 percent. T h e longitudinal aerodynamic center of pressure (Xcp/Li), w h i c h is also independent of { , was selected for trim comparisons. For a trimmed vehicle, the longitudinal center of pressure (the imaginary point o n the vehicle where the pitching moment is zero) coincides with the center of gravity. Figures 6 and 7 present a comparison of the flight and predicted centers of pressure. As c a n be seen in figures 6 b and 7 b , at Mach numbers above 10 the predicted center of pressure is more aft by 0.7 percent of the reference body length (1.9 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord) than the flight data would indicate. F o r the Mach range where the Reynolds number w a s simulated (2.0 < M < 10; fig. Zd), trim was predicted more precisely even though unusually high angles of attack between 15 and 30 degrees w e r e flown. The predictions for the transonic and subsonic range w e r e less than satisfactory although they were within the predicted variations. The slight difference between S T S - 2 flight and predicted in the Mach 2 to 10 range of figure 6 b w a s not noted in STS-I5 and - 4 results and can be attributed to a possible uncertainty in the center of gravity location for STS-2.

In addition, axial force coefficient ( C A 1 comparisons have been made. Two observations can be made from the C A comparisons of figures 8 and 9. T h e underprediction of subsonic LID previously reported w a s largely influenced by the overprediction of C A in the
same Mach range. Figures 8 b and 9 b indicate that the viscous interaction parameter ( T & > , which is used above M a c h 1 5 , was a w i s e choice of scaling parameters f o r C A . T h e higher flight C A seen at Mach 1 2 to 14 of STS-2 and -4 corresponds to a f l i g h t control system u p d a t e w h i c h involved a n aileron input, possibly causing a controlsurface-induced laminar-to-turbulent boundary layer transition. Longitudinal Trim Difference Analysis U p o n examination of the X c p / L B correlations (fig. 10) derived from the previously mentioned pullupfpushover maneuvers, the S T S - 2 H = 2 1 data indicate a very good straight-line correlation which is parallel to but biased from the perfect correlation line by approximately 0.0075, while the S T S - 4 M = 1 2 data indicate a bias of approximately 0.004. The data being essentially parallel to the perfect correlation line indicates that the effects of angle of attack and elevon effectiveness are as predicted and the bias is probably the result of not correctly predicting the basic vehicle pitching moment or underprediction o f t h e body flap b y approximately 5 0 percent. Illustrated in figure 1 1 are the X c p / L B correlations of data taken during body flap pulse maneuvers at Mach numbers o f approximately 21,

288

0

1 7 , a n d 1 2 . 5 € o r STS-2. D u r i n g t h o s e m a n e u v e r s t h e a n g l e o f a t t a c k . w a s n e a r c o n s t a n t w i t h o n l y t h e body f l a p and e l e v o n s moving.
E a c h b o d y f l a p m a n e u v e r o f f i g u r e 11 i l l u s t r a t e d a g e n e r a l l y s t r a i g h t l i n e c o r r e l a t i o n w h i c h was p a r a l l e l t o t h e p e r f e c t c o r : : e l a t i o n l i n e and b i a s e d i n t h e same manner as t h e P U P 0 m a n e u v e r s . The i n f e r e n c e h e r e i s t h a t b o t h t h e body flap and e l e v o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s The r a t i o o f t h e c h a n g e i n e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n t o t h e a r e as predicted. c h a n g e i n body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n f r o m t h e f l i g h t d a t a i s a s was p r e d i c t e d . T h i s l e n d s a d d i t i o n a l s t r e n g t h t o t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t b o t h body f l a p and e l e v o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s were w e l l p r e d i c t e d . T h e r e f o r e , 'one w o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e most p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e h y p e r s o n i c t r i m d i s c r e p a n c y would b e a n e r r o r i n t h e p r e d i c t e d b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment o f t h e v e h i c l e . The wind t u n n e l results w e r e r e e x a m i n e d t o i n s u r e t h a t no d a t a were o v e r l o o k e d which would b e t t e r r e f l e c t the flight data results. None were f o u n d . One m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o p e r s c a l i n g w a s n o t r e a l i z e d f o r t h e hypersonic t r i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e i t h e r because the s c a l i n g parameter was improperly s e l e c t e d o r because t h e t e s t f a c i l i t i e s were n o t c a p a b l e of r e p r o d u c i n g t h e p r o p e r e n v i r o n m e n t . Because t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i s i n d i c a t e d t o r e s u l t f r o m a b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment e r r o r , t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s due t o t h e t e s t f a c i l i t i e s n o t r e p r o d u c i n g t h e p r o p e r environment, namely t o s i m u l a t e r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . Because r e a l . - g a s e f f e c t s can n o t b e s i m u l a t e d i n g r o u n d - b a s e d t e s t f a c i l i t i e s , r e a l . - g a s e f f e c t s , w h i c h p r i m a r i l y a f f e c t t h e p i t c h i n g moment, w e r e a r i a l . y t i c a 1 l y d e r i v e d and i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a b a s e . However, due t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e a n a l y t i c a l l y d e r i v e d e f f e c t s , t h e y were a p p l i e d t o t h e p r e d i c t e d moment uncertainties o r v a r i a t i o n s mentioned p r e v i o u s l y . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e a n a l y t i c a l l y d e r i v e d r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s do g i v e t h e c o r r e c t t r e n d s and approximate magnitudes r e q u i r e d t o b e t t e r p r e d i c t t h e f lig,ht characteristics. Subsonic Performance Difference Analysis
A s a r e s u l t of t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n f l i g h t p e r f o r m a n c e and p r e d i c t e d performance i n the s u b s o n i c r a n g e , t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r was a n a l y z e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o d r a g a n d s p e e d b r a k e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Data from f l i g h t s 4 and 5 of t h e Approach and Landing T e s t Program (ALT 4 a n d ALT 5 ) a n d STS-1, - 2 , - 3 , a n d -4 w e r e u s e d . The d r a g a n a l y s i s was c e n t e r e d on t h e a x i a l f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t a n d i n c l u d e d o n l y t h e f l i g h t d a t a t a k e n w i t h a s p e e d b r a k e d e f l e c t i o n o f l e s s t h a n 30 d e g r e e s , w i t h t h e l a n d i n g g e a r r e t r a c t e d , and a b o v e t h e r e g i o n of g r o u n d e f f e c t s C o r r e l a t i o n p l o t s of f l i g h t t o p r e d i c t d d a t a a r e ( i . e . hJb > 1.5). p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 1 2 a n d i n d i c a t e a n o v e r p r e d i c t i o n of C A by a

0

c o n s t a n t 40 c o u n t s ( C A = 0.004)

for a l l f l i g h t d a t a s e t s , w i t h t h e

e x c e p t i o n o f t h a t f o r t h e f i n a l d a t a r e d u c t i o n of STS-1 a n d - 4 , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s a n o v e r p r e d i c t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 0 c o u n t s . No e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e STS-1 a n d -4 d i s c r e p a n c y i s a v a i l a b l e a t t h e present time. A s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s r e s u l t e d f r o m c o r r e c t i n g t h e p r e d i c t e d p r o f i l e d r a g by - 4 0 c o u n t s ( s e e
289

OR!GNAL FjtGE 5 8

fig. 13). to 0.5.

The data presented in figur%%!%n!4mre

for Mach

M

0.47

For the analysis of speedbrake effectiveness, flight test data w e r e selected w h e r e body flap deflection was approximately z e r o degrees. and the speedbrake w a s swept through a large deflection range. ALT 4 and 5 and STS-1 and - 2 reflect those conditions. The flight data w e r e then corrected to a n a n g l e of attack of 5 degrees and an elevon deflection of 5 degrees through the use of the coefficient slopes as determined from the predicted data base. The resultant effectiveness w i t h respect to axial force coefficient is presented in figure 1 4 as a n increment about the baseline speedbrake deflection of 2 5 degrees. For S T S - 1 and - 2 , the effectiveness was underpredicted by approximately 60 counts at a 55-degree speedbrake deflection angle. 6 Results from A L T 4 and 5 d o not indicate this underprediction. Resolution of this flight data inconsistency will require further analysis. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The completion of the f i r s t f o u r flights of the S p a c e Shuttle orbiter has given aerodynamicists the first opportunity to test their prediction skills over diverse flight conditions. The performance predictions w e r e in excellent agreement with flight performance above Mach 1 ; however, drag w a s overpredicted at the subsonic Mach numbers.

T h e trim characteristics were predicted adequately in the Mach range of 2 to 1 0 ; h o w e v e r , above Mach 1 0 and below Mach 2 , the predictions w e r e less t h a n satisfactory. Analysis results of the STS2 and - 4 maneuvers during entry indicate t h a t the hypersonic trim . discrepancy is due to a n error in prediction of the basic vehicle pitching moment and n o t to a n error in prediction o f the e l e v o n a n d b o d y f l a p effectiveness. REFERENCES
1.

"Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Volume 1, Orbiter Vehicle 102," SD72-SB-0060, Volume 1 M , November 1980, Space Divi'sion, Rockwell International.
Cox,

2.

R. N. and Crabtree, L. F., "Elements of Hypersonic Aerodynamics," Academic P r e s s , New Y o r k , 1965.
CR-145284,
April 1978.

3.

"Aerodynamic Preliminary Analysis System, Part I-Theory," NASA "Aerodynamic Preliminary Analysis System, Part 11-User's Manual and Program Description," NASA CR- 1 4 5 3 0 0 , April 1378.

4.

29 0

.5.

Y o u n g , J. C., P e r e z , L. F., R o m e r e , P. O., a n d K a n i p e D. B., "Space S h u t t l e E n t r y A e r o d y n a m i c C o m p a r i s o n s o f F l i g h t 1 w i t h P r e f l i g h t P r e d i c t i o n s , " A I A A 8 1 - 2 4 7 6 , p a p e r p r e s e n t e d at A I A A / S E P T / S F T E / S A E / I T E A / I E E E 1st F l i g h t T e s t i n g C o n f e r e n c e at Las Vegas, Nevada, November 11-13, 1981. R o m e r e , P. 0. a n d Y o u n g , J. C.: "Space S h u t t l e E n t r y A e r o d y n a m i c C o m p a r i s o n s of F l i g h t 2 w i t h P r e f l i g h t P r e d i c t i o n s , " A I A A 82-0565, p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t A I A A 1 2 t h Aerodynamic T e s t i n g C o n f e r e n c e at W i l l i a m s b u r g , V i r g i n i a , M a r c h 22-24, 1982.

6.

291

Table 1

-

S h u t t l e Wind T u n n e l U t i l i z a t i o n Summary Fac i l it v Model S c a l e

Test Identification
Transonic OA145A OA2 7 OA OA27 O B LA70 LA7 6 LA77 L A 1 11 LA115 Supersonic OA145B OA145C OAlO9 LA63A LA63B LA7 5 LA76

ARC 11 x 11 f t L a R C 16T L a R C 16T Calspan 8 f t LTV 4 x 4 HSWT A R C 11 x 11 f t LaRC 8 - f t TPT LaRC 8 - f t TPT

.05 .05 .02 .015 .015 .015 .015

,015

LA1 01
LA11 0 LA114 LA125 LA131 LA144 0A258 OA2 5 9 0A257
Hyper s o n i c

ARC 9 x 7 f t ARC 8 x 7 f t A E D C "A" L a R C UPWT-1 L a R C UPWT-2 L a R C UPWT-2 LTV 4 x 4 BSWT L a R C UPWT-1 L a R C UPWT-1 LaRC UPWT-2 L a R C UPWT-2 LaRC UPWT-2 LTV 4 x 4 H S W T A E D C "B" A E D C "B" L a R C 2 0 i n . Mach 6

.05
.05

-02 -015
.015 .015 -015 .015 .015 .02 .02 -02 .02

.02 .01 .Ol

OAl13 OA171

C a l s p a n HST ( 4 8 i n . ) NW Tunnel 9 S C

.Ol

-02

292

10

ORlGfNAL FAGE 0 9 OF POOR QUALW

GEOMETRY AREA

COMPONENT WING
2690 FT2 (249.9092 m2) (23.8425)

VERTICAL TAIL
413.25 FT2 (38.3922 m2) 315.72 (8.0193) 1.675 0.404 DEG 45

936.68 SPAN ASPECT RATIO 2.265 0.2 TAPER RATIO 81/45 SWEEP (LE) 3.5 DIHEDRAL 0.5 INCIDENCE 474.81 MAC

DEG

--

DEG' (1 2.0602)

-199.81 (5.0752)

NOTE: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES (METERS)

I

MOMENT
REFERENCE
0

'-REF BODY LENGTH 1290.3 (32.7736)

J

I-936.68(23.8425)

I

F i g u r e 1.- S p a c e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .

293

. ..1 . . . . .

.

-1

............ . . .

: ......... ... ..

. . . . II . . . ..

. . . .......................L.......... L . :

.

.

.

.
.

\

...: .......... i..! .......... ..........L .........L i ....... i ? : : : : :
. : : . . . *.....................
I

.

.

.

1;
.........

......'.. .........,._..... : J P
.. .. i... , I

. :....................
i

: : : . . . ............I............ . ....Ii

-

.

.

L....
:
.
4

j.
:

:

" ........... ........... ............

i ......... ..... . ' .i............ i,........... i . . . ............. i............ .......... t...........i-.........i.......... i . . . . . . . . . . .
: :

:

1 :

..

; :

. .

j :

. .

:

.

d
0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 MACH NUMBER

(a) A n g l e o f a t t a c k .

100
80

2
W

-20
-40 -60
-100

0" K

6 -80

(b) Roll angle.

F i g u r e 2 . - STS-1 t h r o u g h - 4
294

e n t r y f l i g h t conditions.

ORIGINAL PAGE f8 OF POOR QUALITY
I

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2:3 MACH NUMBER

(c) Altitude.

to8 107
107

ReLB
106

106 R~LB
105

105

0.1

1.o MACH NUMBER

v

104

10.0

0

5

10 15'' 20 25 30 MACH NUMBER

(d) R e y n o l d s n u m b e r s i m u l a t i o n .
Figure 2.Concluded.
295

O W I ~ N A PAGE 1 L 8 OF POOR Q U A L m
6.0

! -

5.5 0 5.0 -

CT

a 4.5
3.5 3.0

c7 4.0

d

L J
\

c

2.5 2.0
1.5
1.0

(a) M a c h 0.0 t o 2.0.

2.0
0 1.8
E 1.6
4
CT

-

t

- PREDICTED
....
..a

0

FLIGHT

U

0

0
I

z
d

1.4

..,

.

. . . ,

.

.

. . . I . . . 4

.-

1

E 1.2

2

10 .
.O

2

4

6

8

10

12 14 1 6

18 20 22 24 26
I
I I

MACH NUMBER I

0.005

0.01

0.02 0.03

im, VISCOUS INTERACTION
PARAMETER

(b) M a c h 2.0 t o 26.0.
F i g u r e 3.- STS-2 a e r o d y n a m i c p e r f o r m a n c e c o m p a r i s o n .

296

.O

.2

.4

.6

.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 MACH NUMBER

1.6

1.8

2.0

(a) M a c h 0.0 t o 2.0.

2.0

I

I
0 FLIGHT - PREDICTED

0 1.8

E
I -

F a
1.6

1
*

---

VA R IAT1ONS

d t
0 k

n 1.41

;1 1.2
0.8 2

L - - t

4

6

8

, - - .. - -.- _b-\ c -, 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 M A C H NUMBER
I

.

I
.005

I
.

vi,

.01 .02.03 VISCOUS INTERACTION PARAMETER

II

(b) M a c h 2.0 t o 2 8 . 0 .

Figure 4 . -

STS-4

aerodynamic performance comparison.

297

a .
I
? I

I-

. . .

, . .

. . .

.. .
;

U

..
. . . . . . . . .

. :

:

..

. :

;

..

. :

.
I

. :

. :

.a

.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

PREDICTED L/D

(a) STS-2; M = 21.

0.8

0.9

1.o

1.1

1.2

1.3

PREDICTED LID

(b)

S T S - 4 ; M = 12.

Figure 5 . -

Hypersonic l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o c o r r e l a t i o n o f flight w i t h p r e d i c t e d d a t a € o r pullup/pushover maneuvers.

298

.70

I

1

K w
W J

.O

.2

.4

.6
(a)

.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 MACH NUMBER

1.6

1.8

2.0

M a c h 0.0 t o 2 . 0 .

.70 F

.

.

.

1

. .

..

: .

: .

.:

: .

.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14
I

16

18

20
I

22

24
I I

26

MACH NUMBER

.005 -

.01

.02.03

Vb, VISCOUS INTERACTION PARAMETER

(b) M a c h 2 . 0
Figure 6 . -

to 26.0.

STS-2 l o n g i t u d i n a l a e r o d y n a m i c c e n t e r o f pressure l o c a t i o n comparison.
299

.O

.2

.4

.6

.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 MACH NUMBER

1.6

1.8

20 .

(a) M a c h 0.0 t o 2 . 0 .

.70 E

I

.69

I

-

-.-

0

FLIGHT PREDICTED , VARIATIONS

m

641. 2 4

6

8

a

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 MACH NUMBER I I II .Offi .01 .02.03
I .

-

V L VISCOUS INTERACTION
PARAMETER

( b ) Mach 2.0

to

28.0.

F i g u r e 7.-

STS-4 longitudinal aerodynamic center of p r e s s u r e location comparison.

300

(a) M a c h 0.0 t o 2.0.

i

.

1

1

.

1

.

I

, . , _ , _ , .

2

4

6

8

10

12 14 16 18 MACH NUMBER

20

22

24

26

.OB

I

.o 1

I

.02.03

I t

c(b) M a c h 2 . 0

VISCOUS INTERACTION PAR AM ETE R

to 2 6 . 0 .

F i g u r e 8.- STS-2 a x i a l f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t c o m p a r i s o n .
301

.ooI

.O

.

.2

'

'

.4

.6

.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 MACH NUMBER
to 2 . 0 .

1.6

1.8

2.0

(a) M a c h 0 . 0

0 FLIGHT -PREDICTED VARIATIONS

__ _- - - --.ool
'
I . '

~

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

' . ' . '

2

4

6

8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 MACH NUMBER

I
.005

I
.01

II
.02.03

v ,:

VISCOUS INTERACTION PARAMETER

( b ) Mach 2.0

to 2 5 . 0 .

F i g u r e 9.302

STS-4 a x i a l f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t c o m p a r i s o n .

,680 ,678 ,676 ,674

i 572 a

m
V

2
I
(3
U

.670

i ,668
,666
.664

,662
,660 .~

.660 .662 .664 ,666 ,668 ,670 ,672 .674 .676 .678 .680 PREDICTED X c p l L ~

(a) STS-2; M = 2 1 .

.680
.678 .676 .674

.
.

.
.

.

.
.

.
.

.

, .

h

.072

)? I I
y

. O G
.608
.

. .
.
. .

2

.

.666

,664
.662
/

....

..

u.
1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1

.
. 1

.
. 1 .

,660

$60 662 .664 .666 .668 .67Q .672 .674 .676 $78 .880 PREDICTED Xcp/LB

(b) S T S - 4 ;

M = 12.

Figure 1 0 . - Hypersonic l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c e n t e r of pressure correlation of f l i g h t with predicted data for pullup/pushover maneuvers.
303

M = 21

M = 17

PREDICTED x c p / L ~

PREDICTED x c p / L ~

M = 12.5

PREDICTED x c p / L ~

F i g u r e 11.- STS-2 h y p e r s o n i c l o n g i t u d i n a l a e r o d y n a m i c c e n t e r of pressure c o r r e l a t i o n of f l i g h t w i t h p r e d i c t e d d a t a f o r body f l a p p u l s e maneuvers.

304

ALT 4
.08

Q .06 0

0

a

c

-I .

E

I

.04

~~

~

."L

.02

.06 PREDICTED CA

.04

.08

.02

.04 .06 PREDICTED CA

.08

STS- 1

STS-2

c

.02

.04 .06 PREDICTED CA
STS-3

.08

.02

.04

.06

.08

PREDICTED C A

STS-4

.08

.08

0
L

a

.06

u

a .06

I

.04

.02

-02

.02 .04 .06 .02 .04 .06 .08 .08 F i g u r e 1 2 . - S u b s o n i c axial f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s of f l i g h t with predicted data.

305

ALT 4

ALT 5
I

.08

08

c

a u -06
.04

0

a

x

c3 $

-02

.02

.06 PREDICTED CA

.04

.02 .02

.04 -06 PREDICTED CA

.08

STS- 1

.08

5t5-2
.08

c

a u .06
-04

0
L

a

.06

I

I I 4

I

.04

.02

.02

.04

.06

.08

.02

.02

PREDICTED CA STS3
.08

.04 .06 PREDICTED CA

-08

5t5-4
.08

0

a

-06

0

a

.06

c I E
u .04 .
I

c

x

2 I

.04

.02 .02

.06 PREDICTED CA

-04

.08

.02 .02

.06 PREDICTED CA

.04

.08

F i g u r e 13.-

S u b s o n i c axial c o e f f i c i e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s o f f l i g h t w i t h p r e d i c t e d d a t a c o r r e c t e d by -40 c o u n t s .

306

.040

FLIGHT PREDICTED

h

.035 .

o
b 0

.030 '
.025

0

ALT 4 ALT 5

5t5-1 5t5-2

.020

.015

a
0

.OlO

.005
,000

a -.005
-.010

0

5

10 15

20

25

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

70 75

8 SB, SPEEDBRAKE ANGLE (DEG)
F i g u r e 14.- S u b s o n i c a x i a l f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t i n c r e m e n t d u e *e

t o speedbrake d e f l e c t i o n .

307

A REVIEW O F PREFLIGHT ESTIMATES OF REAL-GAS EFFECTS ON SPACE SHUTTLE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS

W. C. Woods, J. P. A r r i n g t o n , and H. H. Hamilton I1 NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, V i r g i n i a

SUMMARY

' P r e f l i g h t estimates of t h e hypersonic aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r were based on a d i v e r s e s e r i e s of r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s u s i n g s t a t e of t h e a r t t e c h n i q u e s developed by basic r e s e a r c h i n t h e 60's and 70's. Real-gas viscoiis c a l c u l a t i o n s on simple shapes t h a t were used t o e v a l u a t e c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t real-gas e f f e c t s reduce aerodynamic Forces and moments. I n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s on winged l i f t i n g shapes i n d i c a t e d reduced f o r c e s and a s l i g h t nose-up p i t c h r e s u l t e d because of r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . A n a l y s i s of t h e e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l d a t a base i n d i c a t e d v i s c o u s c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s p r o v i d e d t h e most a p p r q p r i a t e e x t r a p o l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e f o r e s t i m a t i n g f l i g h t aerodynamics. V a r i a t i o n s becau,ae of changes i n t h e r a t i o o € specific h e a t s , which w a s t h e o n l y a v a i l a b l e e x p e r i m e n t a l tool f o r e v a l u a t i n g r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s , i n d i c a t e d t h a t reduced l o a d s and nose-up p i t c h i n g moments would occur a t h i g h a l t i t u d e s and Mach numbers b u t t h a t t h e v a l u e s would n o t exceed t h e t o l e r a n c e s and v a r i a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d a b o u t t h e a e r o dynamic d e s i g n data book v a l u e s d e r i v e d f r o m v i s c o u s c o r r e l a t i o n s . D u r i n g STS- 1 , nose-up p i t c h i n g moments exceeded t h e e s t a b l i s h e d v a r i a t i o n s . Whereas a l l p r e f l i g h t e s t i m a t e s i n d i c a t e r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s w i l l cause nose-up p i t c h , comparison of STS-1 f l i g h t d a t a t o s e l e c t e d h y p e r s o n i c wind-tunnel t e s t s i n d i c a t e t h e s t a t e of t h e boundary l a y e r and i t s e f f e c t on body-flap e f f e c t i v e n e s s may be an important cont r i b u t o r t o t h e so c a l l e d "hypersonic anomaly."

INTRODUCTION

The s t a t e of t h e a r t knowledge of t h e e f f e c t of r e a l - g a s dynamics o n t h e trimmed performance, s t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l of winged, l i f t i n g , e n t r y vehicles has
not changed f o r about 15 years.
This is not true of simpler, planetary entry

r e s e a r c h shapes. The s t a t e of t h e a r t i n r e a l - g a s c h e m i s t r y and r e a l - g a s e f E e c t s f o r the pressure and h e a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s of b l u n t b o d i e s e n t e r i n g p l a n e t a r y atmos p h e r e s h a s s t e a d i l y p r o g r e s s e d such t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e e x i s t s when t h i s technology i s a p p l i e d i n t h e d e s i g n f o r s u r v i v a b i l i t y of p l a n e t a r y p r o b e s . With t:he growth i n main-frame computers and v e c t o r p r o c e s s o r s , advanced numerical t e c h n i q u e s have been a p p l i e d t o a c c u r a t e l y determine l o a d s and h e a t i n g on b l u n t b o d i e s of r e v o l u t i o n with s o n i c c o r n e r s and s l i g h t l y b l u n t e d s l e n d e r b o d i e s of r e v o l u t i o n i n real-gas environments. I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t m a s s a d d i t i o n i s f r e q u e n t l y employed t o reduce shape change and h e a t i n g , and t h i s phenomenon h a s been a n a l y t i c a l l y modeled. Whereas t h i s a b i l i t y t o model complex r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on t h e aerothermodynamics of b o d i e s of r e v o l u t i o n h a s been a p p l i e d t o p r e d i c t i n g local p r e s s u r e and h e a t i n g on complex, winged, l i f t i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , it h a s n o t been a p p l i e d i n an i n t e g r a t e d manner t o determine o v e r a l l v e h i c l e a e r o dynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s of t h e Space S h u t t l e . This h a s been due i n p a r t t o t h e geomet.ry of the v e h i c l e . For example, f o r wing sweeps l e s s t h a n approximately S O 0 and angles of a t t a c k above 2 5 O - 3 O o (Space S h u t t l e e n t r y c o n d i t i o n s ) subsonic flow p0cket.s o c c u r on t h e windward side and u n t i l r e c e n t l y codes c o u l d n o t compute
309

through t h e s e a r e a s . The main c o m p l i c a t i n g f a c t o r h a s been t h e o v e r a l l complexity of tlhe problem of a n a l y t i c a l l y and/or e x p e r i m e n t a l l y modeling low d e n s i t y , v i s c o u s , r e a l - g a s environments on b o t h windward and leeward s u r f a c e s on t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l s h a p e s w i t h any degree of c o n f i d e n c e . T h i s problem i s f a c e d by t h e d e v e l o p e r s of advanced space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems today a s t h e S h u t t l e d e v e l o p e r s f a c e d it i n t h e e a r l y seventies. Data from t h e f i r s t 5 S h u t t l e f l i g h t s have i n d i c a t e d where d e f i c i e n c i e s e x i s t i n S h u t t l e p r e d i c t e d aerodynamics. Hopefully, w i t h t h e S h u t t l e system r e t u r n i n g t o E a r t h on a f a i r l y r o u t i n e b a s i s , s u E f i c i e n t d a t a w i l l b e accumulated t o e s t a b l i s h a f l i g h t d a t a b a s e and t o develop e m p i r i c a l models of t h e v e h i c l e ' s performance, s t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l l i m i t s a t e n t r y Mach numbers. In t h e i n t e r i m , a look back a t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e v a r i o u s a s s e s s m e n t s conducted i n t h e p a s t 1 2 y e a r s can p l a c e i n p e r s p e c t i v e t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t of r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on s t a t i c aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y and t r i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c u r r e n t and f u t u r e s p a c e transportation systems. T h i s paper w i l l summarize t h e p r e f l i g h t a t t e m p t s t o a c c e s s r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s o n o r b i t e r e n t r y aerodynamics.

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Chapman-Rubesin v i s c o s i t y c o e f f i c i e n t e v a l u a t e d i n t h e f r e e stream
based on w a l l c o n d i t i o n s ,

p Tw w -pw
TcD

Chapnan-Rubesin v i s c o s i t y c o e f f i c i e n t e v a l u a t e d i n t h e f r e e stream
based on r e f e r e n c e temperature c o n d i t i o n s ,
'o c T' 7-

*w

Chapman-Rubesin v i s c o s i t y c o e f f i c i e n t e v a l u a t e d a t l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s based on r e f e r e n c e t e m p e r a t u r e c o n d i t i o n s ,
CA
1'

7

axial-force coefficient,

axial force
q.as

IJ

T.

T'

a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t based on l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s , a x i a l f orce/q ,S d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t , drag/q,,,S minimum-drag c o e f f i c i e n t r e f e r e n c e d t o l e n g t h , viscous-drag c o e f f i c i e n t , v i s c o u s drag/q,S minimum d r a y 2 qmL

CL
pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , p i t c h i n g moment/qwSL
cmI I ,

pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t r e f e r e n c e d t o l o c a l dynamic p r e s s u r e c o n d i t i o n s , p i t c h i n g moment/q ,SI, normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t , normal force/q,$ normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t based on local dynamic p r e s s u r e c o n d i t i o n s , normal force/q,S

cP
Cf

pressure coefficient,

7
=a

P'P,

s k i n f r i c t i o n coefficient

L/D

lift-to-drag

r a t i o , %/CD

K,
"m

reference length freestream Mach number local Mach number pressure freestream s t a t i c pressure freestream dynamic pressure

F1 t

L '
E'aJ

F[

, ,

local dynamic pressure freestream Reynolds number, local Reynolds number,
nose radius

, : F F :

pm

PmvmL

1 lL " -

I-I,

S

reference area w 1 temperature a 1

=,
T' V

f r e e str earn temperature reference temperature velocity
s l i p parameter evaluated at freestream conditione based on wall

"P,

temperature,

4 c
Mmf<

.,4<

s l i p parameter evaluated a t freestream conditions, --

JK

s l i p parameter evaluated a t l o c a l conditions based on reference temperature,

-

M , q

fq

X
Z

spanwise coordinate measured from centerline a x i a l coordinate measured from nose

% ,

body f l a p deflection angle, deg

CI
P

viscosity density v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n parameter e v a l u a t e d a t f r e e s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s based on r e f e r e n c e t e m p e r a t u r e ,

-

xd,

-

Abbreviations:
ADDB

Aerodynamic Design Data Rook ( r e f s . 1 4 , 2 7 , 38, 39) Arnold E n g i n e e r i n g Development C e n t e r
A e Research C e n t e r ms

AE DC
ARC

CALS P N A
JSC

Arvin Calspan Advanced Technology C e n t e r Johnson Space C e n t e r S h u t t l e wind-tunnel tests Langley Re s e a r c h Center Ling Tempco Vaught Corporation Minimum D r a g Body Naval S u r f a c e Weapons Center

LA46,OA20C, e t c .
LaRC

LTV

MDB

NSWC

REAL-GAS/HIGH-ALTITUDE/LOW-DENSITY EFFECTS
The s t a t e of t h e a r t a n a l y s i s of r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s i n t h e s i x t i e s w a s a d e q u a t e l y 1 This t r e a t m e n t places emphasis on h e a t i n g and d e p i c t e d by Nagel and Thomas p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ; hence s i m u l a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y was measured i n terms of Mach number and v e l o c i t y ( o r t o t a l e n t h a l p y ) . S t a g n a t i o n p o i n t s i m u l a t i o n w a s judged i n s e n s i t i v e t o Mach numbers i n excess of 8 - 1 0 , b u t no mention w a s made of t h e import a n c e o f s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t d e n s i t y r a t i o . Ground f a c i l i t i e s were judged i n c a p a b l e of s i m u l a t i n g r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s o v e r an e n t i r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n and were judged a d e q u a t e o n l y t o a b o u t 7 0 , 0 0 0 fps v e l o c i t y . These o b s e r v a t i o n s were based o n flow a n a l y s i s a b o u t body s h a p e s amenable t o r e l i a b l e c a l c u l a t i o n ( s h a r p and b l u n t d e l t a wings, s h a r p l e a d i n g edye f l a t p l a t e s with t r a i l i n F e d g e f l a p s , e t c . ) , and o v e r a l l i n t e g r a t e d aerodynamics were n o t c o n s i d e r e d .

.

During t h e same p r e - S h u t t l e t i m e frame, N S and t h e Air F o r c e w e r e t e s t i n g AA e n t r y shapes c l a s s e d a c c o r d i n g t o trimmed L/D c a p a b i l i t y and c o n s i d e r i n g ways t o c o r r e l a t e t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a c r o s s l a r g e Mach n m b e r and Reynolds number r a n g e s a s a means of e x t r a p o l a t i n g ground f a c i l i t y d a t a t o f l i g h t . W h i t f i e l d a n d G r i f f i t h 2 s t u d y i n g v i s c o u s d r - g e f f e c t s on b l u n t e d s l e n d e r c o n e s p o s t u l a t e d a M(R)-1/2, t o c o r r e l a t e v i s c o u s d r a g and u s i n g Tsien's3 " s l i p parameter," V These a u t h o r s , p e r h a p s n o t i n g t h e _ s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e h y p e r s o n i c performance ( L / D ) . M3$R)-1/2) r e f e r r e d vis_cous i n t e r a c t i o n parameter of Lees and P r o b s t e i n 4 ( x t o V a s t h e h y p e r s o n i c v i s c o u s parameter. S i e r o n5 , B e r t r a m 6 - , and o t h e r s a c r o s s t h e
312

a e r o s p a c e community were examining V , a n d a h o s t of o t h e r p a r a m e t e r s t o c o r r e l a t e Mach number, Reynolds number, a n d t e m p e r a t u r e r a t i o e f f e c t s upon s k i n P r i c t i o n , boundaiy l a y e r t r a n s i t i o n , l o c a l p r e s s u r e a n d h e a t i n g , a n d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The h i g h Mach number l o w - d e n s i t y ( l o w Reynolds number) regime c ' m r a c t e r i z e d by t h e s e s t u d i e s i s t h e same regime where r e a l - g a s dynamics o c c u r i n f l i q h t . T h e r e f o r e , many people, i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r s , have some d i f f i c u l t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between l o w - d e n s i t y a n d r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . When t h e S h u t t l e w a s b o r n i n t h e l a t e s i x t i e s ; , r e s e a r c h e r s were c a l c u l a t i n g r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on simple s h a p e s and c o r r e l a t i n g i d e a l - g a s ground f a c i l i t y d a t a on more c o m p l i c a t e d s h a p e s w i t h t h e hope of u s i n g b o t h t e c h n i q u e s t o g e t a f o c u s e d view of r e a l - g a s a e r o d y n a m i c s .
ILRV/PHASE

- -

x,

B-C SHUT"L,E

E a r l y S h u t t l e a c t i v i t y ( e n t i t l e d " I n t e g r a l Launch a n d R e e n t r y V e h i c l e S t u d i e s " ) i w o l v e d w i d e l y d i v e r s e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( s t r a i g h t wing, d e l t a wing, l i f t i n g b o d i e s , e t c . ) a n d c o n c e p t s ( 2 s t a g e , s t a g e a n d a h a l f , t r i a m e s e , etc. 1 w i t h s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s , x h a s g r o s s l i f t - o f f w e i g h t , p a y l o a d s i z e , s t a g i n g v e l o c i t y , a n d cross r a n g e a s o p e n i s s u e s . T h e r e f o r e , g r a y a r e a s such a s l o w - d e n s i t y , r e a l - g a s , v i s c o u s - d o m i n a t e d f l i g h t conditions received l i t t l e attention. Assessment of t h e s e v a r i o u s conf i g u r a t i o n s , however, r e q u i r e d a n i n t e n s i v e w i n d t u n n e l t e s t program. T e s t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d a c r o s s t h e e n t i r e continuum f l i g h t r a n g e for b o t h a s c e n t and e n t r y ( . i n c l u d i n g h y p e r s o n i c ) c o n d i t i o n s9 , l O

.

B y mid-1971, economic f a c t o r s were b e g i n n i n g t o d r i v e t h e S h u t t l e c o n c e p t t o w a r d t h e e v e n t u a l c h o i c e of a d o u b l e - d e l t a o r b i t e r w i t h a n e x t e r n a l f u e l t a n k u s i n g s o l i d - r o c k e t boosters. R e s e a r c h e r s w e r e a b l e t o d i r e c t t h e i r e f f o r t s t o u s i n g t h e g e n e r a t e d data a n d t h e e x i s t i n g t e c h n o l o g y base from t h e 60's t o i n v e s t i g a t e i xwes s u c h a s l o w - d e n s i t y e f f e c t s a n d c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s .

I n a t r e a t m e n t of t h e "Operational Aspects of S h u t t l e " , Holloway' discussed t h e h i g h - a l t i t u d e e f f e c t s on e n t r y o p e r a t i o n s . The assumed a r e a of c o n c e r n i s shown ; i n f i g u r e 1 to be f o r ? > 0.007 which, € o r t h e assumed t r a j e c t o r y , o c c u r r e d a t a n a:Ltitude o f 240,000 f t . For ? < 0 . 0 0 7 , aerodynamic e v a l u a t i o n s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d i n : ground f a c i l i t i e s w e r e b e l i e v e d s u f f i c i e n t . Emphasis w a s , t h e r e f o r e , p l a c e d w h e r e t h e behavior of aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was a n d s t i l l i s r e l a t i v e l y u n c e r t a i n . Pa s t work i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e r i o u s performance d e g r a d a t i o n c a n occur i n t h i s r e g i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i n i t i a l estimates of t h e h i h - a l t i t u d e a e r o d y n a m i c s w e r e made by a p p l y i n g t h e H y p e r s o n i c Arbitrary-Body Program" t o t h e p h a s e B N o r t h American 134D o r b i t e r (figure 2 ) . A s i n d i c a t e d o n t h e f i g u r e , v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s of v i s c o u s a n d i n v i s c i d a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s were u s e d t o v e r i f y t h e numerical model a g a i n s t t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e a n d t h e n t o c a l c u l a t e t h e h i g h - a l t i t u d e e f f e c t s where no d a t a e x i s t e d . F i g u r e 3 i n d i c a t e s t h e p e r f o r m n c e d e g r a d a t i o n a n d t r i m c h a n g e s t h a t were p r e d i c t e d w i t h t h e s e methods f o r c o n d i t i o n s from ~ = 6 t 120,000 it. a l t i t u d e a (7:=0.0007) t o M=25 a t 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 f t . a l t i t u d e (free-molecular f l o w ) . A p o i n t of i n t e r e s t i s t h a t , e x c l u d i n g t h e f r e e - m o l e c u l a r r e g i o n , t r i m a n g l e of a t t a c k v a r i a t i o n i s o n l y a b o u t 5 O a n d t h e s e n s e of t h e v a r i a t i o n i s t o w a r d nose-up p i t c h j o i n g f r o m W6 a n d h=120,000 f t . t o M=22 a n d h=300,000 f t . (v1=0.017). With t h i s m a n a l y s i s a s a q u a n t i f y i n g g u i d e t o h i g h - a l t i t u d e d e g r a d a t i o n of aerodynamic c h a r a c teristics, a n e x t r e m e l y c o n s e r v a t i v e model w s i o r m u l a t e d f o r t r a j e c t o r y a n a l y s i s a .?urpose::. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e e f f e c t s would n o t have s i g n i f i c a n t impact. The p r i m a r y c a u s e of c o n c e r n w s t h e l a c k of knowledge c o n c e r n i n q t h i s a r e g i o n 1 .I

.

By t h e 1972-1973 t i m e frame, t h e program had moved i n t h e f i n a l d e s i q n p r o c u r e m e n t c y c l e . Love13 i n h i s 1973 von Karman l e c t u r e on "Advanced Technology 313

a n d t h e Space S h u t t l e " r e a f f i r m e d t h e i n d i c a t e d u s e f u l n e s s of 7 ; as a reliable guide t o aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t d e g r a d a t i o n because of h i g h - a l t i t u d e e f f e c t s u s i n g examples from t h e HL-10 e x p e r i e n c e and g e n e r a l h y p e r s o n i c body shaping r e s e a r c h programs of t h e 60's. H e s t a t e d t h a t "prudent a p p l i c a t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s can be b e n e f i c i a l i n d e f i n i n g hypersonic aerodynamics."

DEVELOPMENT O F THE AERODYNAMIC D E S I G N DATA BOOK AND ESTABLISHMENT O F THE AD HOC PANEL ON HYPERSONIC AERODYNAMICS

Through 1973 a f a i r l y l a r g e aerodynamic d a t a b a s e was b e i n g g e n e r a t e d from a n e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t program b e i n g conducted by N A S A and Rockwell I n t e r national. The c o n t r a c t o r used t h i s d a t a b a s e t o develop a n Aerodynamic Design Data Book (ADDB) r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e o r b i t e r ' s aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s across t h e speed range. T h i s a c t i v i t y was monitored c l o s e l y by t h e NASA-JSC O r b i t e r A e r o dynamics manager through a system of p e r i o d i c r e v i e w s and c r i t i q u e s by t h e v a r i o u s N S C e n t e r s and c o n t r a c t o r s . D i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n were e x p r e s s e d i n w r i t i n g i n a AA ( R I D ) , and o v e r a p e r i o d of days a n e g o t i a t e d p o s i t i o n on "Review I t e m D i s p o s i t i o n " t h e d a t a book w a s reached. Real-gas and v i s c o u s - i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were t r e a t e d i n t h i s process. A e a r l y '73 ADDB" n used 7 = M(R)"l2 a s a correlation f o r high-altitude v i s c o u s effects. A f t e r a r e v i e w at LaRC, a recommendation w a s m a d e t h a t V ~ = M m ( C ~ / R m ) 1 / 2 used based o n r e s u l t s of the general hypersonic body s h a p i n g work be p r e s e n t e d i n re€erence 13. This work, summarized i n figure 4 ( f i g . 17, r e f . 13) showed c l e a r l y t h e importance of u t i l i z i n g c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s i n t h e i r d e f i n e d e n t i r e t y and n o t a p p r o x i m a t i o n s t h e r e o f . For example, i n f i g u r e 4 , d r a g r e s u l t s f o r a series of n-power b o d i e s (radius=_ength") and a c l a s s i c a l minimum d r a g body ( M D B ) a r e p r e s e n t e d v e r s u s M ( R ) - l / * and VL. The open f l a g g e d symbols a r e e x p e r i m e n t a l results f o r M=10.3 i n a i r a t one t e s t c o n d i t i o n . The open symbols a r e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s i n helium a t M = 20 f o r a range of Reynolds numbers, and t h e o r e t i c a l It i s i n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e i n d i c t e d by t h e c l o s e d symbols a t M(F)-"*=v'=O. m e a s i l y s e e n t h a t whereas M ( R ) does F o t c o r r e l a t e t h e data, V I does. It should be n o t e d t h a t : = 1 f o r t h e a i r d a t a , V k = 0.008 = M(R) ' 2 C I Accordingly, . r e s e a r c h e r s i n a i r ground f a c i l i t i e s had used t h i s s i m p l i f i c a t i o n f o r y e a r s . This assumption n e g a t e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y of t h e parameter when a w i d e r a n g e o f f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g d i f f e r e n t t e s t g a s e s as w e l l as f r e e - f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , i s considered.

-'"

By i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e v a r i a t i o n of C&, ( f i g . 5) f o r such a range of c o n d i t i o n s , f one sees t h a t f o r ~ 1 . 4 a c i l i t i e s ( a i r and n i t r o g e n ) and M=6 + 2 0 , CL i s g r e a t e r t h a n 0 . 7 ; b u t f o r t h e same Mach number v a r i a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c helium t u n n e l and € l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , CA varies from 0.2 a t M-20 t o 0 . 8 a t M=6. Admittedly, t h i s i s n o t a r i g o r o u s t r e a t m e n t , b u t i t is a clear i n d i c a t i o n of t h e importance of incl_uding t h e Chapman-Rubesin v i s c o s i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (C&) a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e V L c o r r e l a t i o n parameter. Love13 had c a u t i o n e d t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s such a s may n o t n e e Therefore, w h i l e t h e s e p e r t u r b a t i o n s on t h e ADDB e s s a r i l y apply t o a l l v e h i c l e s . were b e i n g recommended, it w a s recognized t h a t parameters d e r i v e d from l a m i n a r boundary l a y e r viscous-dominated flows w e r e b e i n g used i n low-density r e a l - g a s regimes. Amplifying t h e q u e s t i o n a b l e u s e of continuum p a r a m e t e r s were d a t a o b t a i n e d i n i m p u l s e f a c i l i t i e s which i n d i c a t e l a r g e c e n t e r - o f - p r e s s u r e changes on t h e o r b i t e r f o r M=20 low-density c o n d i t i o n s . A reassessment of c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s was r e q u e s t e d by t h e aerodynamics manager. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n l a t e '73 t h e S h u t t l e Proqam 3 14

vL

O f f i c e r e q u e s t e d t h a t L a n g l e y a c c e p t a n a c t i o n i t e m t o examine Mach/Reynolds number efEects f o r 5 2 M 20 a n d ( e a r l y ' 7 4 ) p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n Ad Hoc Workins G ~ o u pf o r O r b i t e r Hypersonic Aerodynamics t o d e t e r m i n e r e a l - g a s a n d v i s c o u s - i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . These a c t i o n s i n i t i a t e d agency-wide a c t i v i t y t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e o f r e a l gas e f f e c t s . A t L a n g l e y , t h e a c t i o n i t e m a n d working group a c t i v i t i e s s h a r e d s i m i l a r problem a r e a s ; t h e r e f o r e , b o t h w e r e i n c l u d e d i n one s t u d y o f Mach/Reynolds number, i n v i s c i d / v i s c o u s , i d e a l / r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on S h u t t l e o r b i t e r aerodynamics. P r o b s t e i n ' s weak i n t e r a c t i o n t h e o r y 1 5 was u t i l i z e d e a r l y i n r-he s.iudy t o e v a l u a t e i d e a l - g a s v i s c o u s e f f e c t s and c o r r e l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s on s e v e r a l c o n e s f o r a wide r a n g e of t e s t a n d f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s (Mm=8 t o 3 0 , R m l ,=0 .OO 1 x l o 6 t o 6 9 x I O ' , a n d y=l.4 and 1.667). The c o n d i t i o n s s e l e c t e d were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f f a c i l i t i e s of i n t e r e s t €or S h u t t l e o r b i t e r t e s t i n g a t h i g h Mach numbers ( C a l s p a n ; La:RC M=19, N2; a n d LaRC M=20, H e ) and a c u r r e n t d e s i g n t r a j e c t o r y ( 8 9 2 2 ) . Qrobstein's theory w a s selected f o r t h i s i n i t i a l e f f o r t because it i s b a s e d o n a t a n g e n t - c o n e flow model ( v e r ; i € i e d a s a good a p p r o x i m a t i o n f o r o r b i t e r lower s u r f a c e flow a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e - L 6 ) t h e i n v i s c i d and v i s c o u s d r a g components are e a s i l y separated, and a large , number of v a r i a b l e s c o u l d be i n c l u d e d ( M , R , Tw,Y, e t c . ) . Althouqh s e v e r a l cone a n g l e s were e v a l u a t e d , t h e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s ( f i g u r e 6 ) a r e f 0 r . a 1 5 O cone. The axSa:--force c o e f f i c i e n t s shown were determined by d i v i d i n g t h e t o t a l c<mea x i a l f o r c e by s u r f a c e area, a p p l y i n g t h i s u n i t a x i a l f o r c e o v e r t h e lower s u r f a c e of t h e o r b i t e r , a n d d i v i d i n g by t h e o r b i t e r r e f e r e n c e area and free-stream dynamic pressure. The magnitude of t h e c a l c u l a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h a t o f a n orbiter i n hypersonic t u n n e l s a t ( ~ - 3 0 ~ . The r e s u l t s have been p l o t t e d v e r s u s several c o r r e l a t i o n parameters. The c l a s s i c a l h y p e r s o n i c v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n p a r a m e t e r , =, x ; M k:,' J R ? , i s normally used t o c o r r e l a t e l o c a l e f f e c t s ( p r e s s u r e , heating, skin f - r i c t i b n , e t c . ) . '&en t h e t o t a l i n t e g r a t e d a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t i s p r e s e n t e d a s a f u n c t i o n of F:, a s e p a r a t e t r e n d a p p e a r s t o be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each f a c i l i t y and for t h e , e n t r y c o n d i t i o n . The l a r g e v a r i a t i o n i n d i c a t e d f o r Calspan c o n d i t i o n s can be . a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e extreme r a n g e of o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s and t h e u s e of d i f f e r e n t nozzles t o obtain these conditions. The s l i p paramete.r, Vm=M, J</ d o e s c o r r e l a t e r e s u l t s €or t h e wind-tunnel t e s t conditions, but f o r entry f l i g h t conditions, a d i f f e r e n t trend i s established.
The Chapman-Ruhesin viscosity coefficient, C , is n e a r l y 1 .O in most a i r facilities. Therefor% in many i n s t a n c e s , it i s assumed to be 1.0; a n d d a t a a r e t h e n c o r r e l a t e d $e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s manner show t h e s a m e t r e n d a s by Ma/ JR-.

-

3

-

-

JK,

o b t a i n e d w i t h V-. Groun: f a c i l l t y r e s u l t s e s t a b l i s h o n e t r e n d and e n t r y c o n d i t i o n s a n o t h e r . The parameter VL=Mm dCk/ where C L i s b a s e d on a reEerence temper( u s i n g Monoghan' s r e f e r e n c e c o n d i t i o n s ) , c o r r e l a t e s t h e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s a t u r e , T' f o r b o t h ground f a c i l i t y a n d e n t r y c o n d i t i o n s ( i d e a l g a s ) . T h e r e f o r e , f o r t h i s s i m p l i s t i c a n a l y s i s , V L a p p e a r e d c a p a b l e of c o r r e l a t i n g h y p e r s o n i c d a t a f o r w i n d t u n n e l and f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s .

dE,

'The Ad Hoc Working Group c o n c e n t r a t e d i t s e f f o r t s on r e s o l v i n g t h e p a r a d o x of u s i n g continuum v i s c o u s p a r a m e t e r s t o c o r r e l a t e r e a l - g a s aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r istics. The g e n e r a l l a c k of knowledge a b o u t combined v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n and r e a l g a s e f f e c t s produced an environment o f no p r a c t i c a l means, e i t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a l o r a n a l y t i c a l , t o s t u d y t h e s e combined e f f e c t s on t h e complex o r b i t e r shape a t h i g h a n g l e s of a t t a c k . A wide v a r i e t y of parameters were c o n s i d e r e d u s i n g b o t h freestream a n d l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s w i t h o u t much s u c c e s s . A complete r e a l - g a s / v i s c o u s code f o r t ' h e S h u t t l e geometry ( a n d a ) d i d n o t e x i s t . T h e r e f o r e , a t h r e e - p a r t s t u d y ( f i g . 7) u s i n g e x i s t i n g a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a was i n i t . i a t e d t o
315

The init.i.31 and t o .'pply r h e r e s u l t s t o t h e lower h a l f only ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of o r b i t e r a t e n t r y a n q l e s cf a t t a c k ) f o r c o n d i t i o n s t h a t s i m u l a t e e n t r y f l i g h t and s e v e r a l ground f a c i l i t i e s . The r e s u l t s were u s e d t o determine t h e magnitude of r e a l / i d e a l and v i s c o u s / i n v i s c i d e e f e c t s and t o e v a l u a t e c o r r e l a t i o n parameters. The second s t e p involved a n e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t program t h a t covered a range of h y p e r s o n i c Mach numbers, R e y n o l d s numbers, and r a t i o s of specific h e a t s t o s i m u l a t e t h e r e a l - g a s , v i s c o u s flow orl t h e o r b i t e r shape i n i d e a l - g a s ground f a c i l i t i e s . Correlation parameters i d e n t i f i e d by t h e cone s t u d i e s w e r e a p p l i e d t o t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from t h e s e tes-ts and t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s u l t s from a l l of t h e o t h e r h y p e r s o n i c tests conducted i n t h e S h u t t l e program. The t h i r d s t e p u t i l i z e d a n i n v i s c i d a n a l y t i c a l program, developed by Grumman for NASA i n s u p p o r t of t h e S h u t t l e program, t o determine t h e magnitudes of i n v i s c i d r e a l - and i d e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on complex 3-D ( S h u t t l e - t y p e ) c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .
Figure 8 shows t h e flow models c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e v i s c o u s , r e a l - g a s a n a l y t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s . For t h e S h u t t l e a t h i q h a n g l e s of a t t a c k , n o r m 1 f o r c e s a r e mainly due t o p r e s s u r e and a x i a l f o r c e s a r e mainly due t o s k i n f r i c t i o n w i t h l i f t , drag, and p i t c h i n g moment due t o a combination of t h e two. The c o n t r a c t u a l s t u d y (NAS11 1 7 2 8 ) c a L c s l a t e d complete flow f i e l d s on 30° and 40° b l u n t e d cones a t a=Oo. (Thus, r =r =n, c -,n a n d CA=CD=fC , C f ) . ) The approach adopted by t h e working yroiip was ( N X ' P t o app1.i t h e s e e x i s t i n g flow f i e l d s t o h a l f cones, assuming p r e s s u r e and f r i c t i o n on t h e !lpper s u r f a c e were z e r o a s d e p i c t e d on t h e lower r i g h t of t h e f i g u r e . Thus, t h e
f l o w m o d e l c s e d c o n s i s t e d of a pure c o n i c a l flow field over a h a l f

d e f i n e Shuttle trim and c o n t r o l b o u n d a r i e s i n t h e h y p e r s o n i c regime. step ~ : J Z S t o EFE c a l c u l a t e d flow f i e l d s on 30° and 40° b l u n t e d

cone such that

l i f t , d r a g , and p i t c h i n g moment were a f u n c t i o n of pressure and f r i c t i o n f o r c e s on the-curved lower s u r f a c e . The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s e f f o r t was t o e i t h e r v e r i f y t h e use of V o r d e t e r m i n e p a r a m e t e r s t h a t would c o r r e l a t e t h e forces and moments produced ; by the r e a l - and i d e a l - g a s flow models, apply t h i s t e c h n i q u e t o t h e h y p e r s o n i c wind t u n n e l d a t a on t h e o r b i t e r , a n d , i f s u c c e s s f u l , e x t r a p o l a t e t o r e a l - g a s f l i g h t conditions. I n 311 c a s e s , i n v i s c i d flow f i e l d s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d f i r s t and t h e n p a r t i a l l y coupled t o v i s c o u s flow f i e l d s by i t e r a t i n g on t h e boundary-layer momentum f l u x ( i t e r a t e d o n t h e boundary l a y e r but n o t t h e shock l a y e r ) . I n v i s c i d i d e a l - g a s am3 eq?ii?ibri-m. flow f i e l d s were c a l c u l a t e d by t h e i n v e r s e blunt-body sol.ut.ion matched t o t h s method of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( f i 9). These i n t u r n were p a r t i a l l y couple2 t o viscrJus codes developed by Cebeci "#' f o r t h e i d e a l - g a s c a s e s and a m o d i f i c a t i o n n f B i o t c n e r ' s nonequil.ibrium code2' f o r t h e equilibrium-flow c a s e s . F i n i t e r a t e f l o w f i e l d s were determined by t h e methods of C u r t i s and Strom22 € o r t h e i n v i s c i d p r o p e z t i e s a n d R l o t t n e r € o r t h e v i s c o u s s o l u t i o n s . A l l codes were modified s o : n e w ? i : i t f o r rza.sons of economy, e a s e of h a n d l i n g , system i n t e r f a c e , and so f o r t h ' 7 f 1 R . a n a l y t i c a l models € o r producing f l i g h t r e s u l t s were 30° and 40° s l i g h t l y cones, (R,/L=O.2) w i t h 100 f t . s l a n t h e i g h t s so r e l a t i v e s u r f a c e lenqtthc wo~ilc!corresp7nd t o t h e o r b i t e r . F l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e d a l t i t u d e s from 2 i 0 , O O n ft. 57 2 7 5 ,OCO f t . f o r both e q u i l i b r i u m and nonequilibrium c h e m i s t r y - T ? i e q ~ ? r.esi:l.t_s were compared t o i d e a l - g a s / v i s c o u s c a l c u l a t i o n s performed on 6-inch m i l e s f o r f n ~ :A?d t i i n n e l t e s t c o n d i t i o n s c o v e r i n g a Mach number range of 6 . 2 t o 2 0 e n d r r a t i o s of spcrcific h e a t s ( y ) from 1.12 t o 1.667. Note t h a t a l t h o u g h d i s c r a t e points a r e dPpicte9; t h e s e r e s u l t s are t h e o r e t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s a t s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s .
TI:?

b:L:?ted

c o n p a r i s o n s of t h e v i s c o u s component of d r a g ( f i g . l o a \ i n d i c a t e d a l l t h e data e x c e p t t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d f o r hyperso :c nitrocjey w i n d , G tun??' c o n d i t i o n s . T c o n t i n u i n g d i a l o g w i t h i n t h e working group .'-- i d i s c u s s e d t h e i IIX c f I - ~ - F , ! - 2ararnetcrs f o r real-qas d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n . Figure l b t . -2hObjS t h a t
t h a t 7' x r - - l n t e s

Tr?itFal -

Because p r e v i o u s c o r r e l a t i o n s had does i n d e e d c o r r e l a t e t h e v i s c o u s drag. 1 i n d i c a t e d V H c o u l d correlate t h e v i s c o u s force component i n i d e a l - g a s c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . n i t r o g e n t u n n e l ) t h e d a t a of f i g u r e 10 w s reexamined. a It was d i s c o v e r e d t h e o r i g i n a l study used t h e c l a s s i c a l Sutherland l a w f o r t h e nitrogen temperatureB e r t r a m 2 3 recommended Keyes 1 2 4 , 2 5 T-P ( t e m p e r a t u r e viscosity relationship. v i s c o s i t y ) r e l a t i o n s h i p a s providing a better f i t to t h e e x i s t i n g P p data base over a wide t e m p e r a t u r e r a n g e such a s e n c o u n t e r e d i n n i t r o g e n t u n n e l s . Keyes' r e l a t i o n s h i p had b2en u s e d i n t h e e a r l i e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ( f i g . 61, a n d , when a p p l i e d t o c a l c u l a t e V L f o r t h e d a t a o f f i g u r e 10, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h ? a n d : became 1 i d e n t i c a l ( f i g . 1 1 ) . The e f f o r t under t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t was concluded a n d is summarized i n r e f e r e n c e 26. A new c o n t r a c t was e x t e n d e d t o McDonald Douglas (NASI13868) t o recompute t h e . f l o w f i e l d s f o r t h e n i t r o g e n t u n n e l a n d a i r t u n n e l conditions using state-of-the-art t r a n s p o r t p r o p e r t i e s and t o e x t e n d t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s t o 300,000 f t . a l t i t u d e . The r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n f i g u r e s 11-14 u s i n g selected r e s u l t s t o emphasize s i g n i f i c a n t c o n c l u s i o n s .
$I

v1

The v i s c o u s component o f f o r c e s and moments w a s c o r r e l a t e d by b o t h ? a n d ; 1 However, t h e p r e s s u r e component a c c o u n t e d f o r t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e t o t a l f o r c e a n d dominated t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a s shown i n f i g u r e 12 f o r b o t h t h e 30° a n d 40° c o n e c a l c u l a t i o n s . The c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e o f % f o r wind t u n n e l condit i o n s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h ", a n d cD c a l c u l a t e d f o r f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s ( n o n e q u i l i b r i u m a n d e q u i l i b r i u m ) correlated w i t h VL. H o w e v e r , wind t u n n e l c a l c u l a t i o n s a n d r e a l - g a s f l i g h t c a l c u l a t i o n s d i d n o t correlate w i t h each o t h e r . IJsing l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e h y p e r s o n i c v i s c o u s parameter ) produced t h e same r e s u l t s ( f i g . 13).
a s shown by figure 11.

v1

(cl t

V a r i a b l e y b e c a u s e of r e a l - g a s c h e m i s t r y h a s a s t r o n g e f f e c t o n shock l o c a t i o n a n d s t a g n a t i o n - p o i n t s t a n d o f f d i s t a n c e f o r b l u n t b o d i e s , which g r e a t l y a f f e c t s l o c a l f l o w conditions. Hunt26 p o s t u l a t e d t h a t f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s f o r c e a n d moment c o e f f i c i e n t . s b a s e d on l o c a l dynamic p r e s s u r e s h o u l d c o r r e l a t e w i t h l o c a l Mach number. The p r e s e n t c a l c u l a t e d r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e t w o 30° a n d 40° h a l f c o n e s i n d i c a t e d r e l a t i v e l y good c o r r e l a t i o n s o f l i f t a n d d r a g u s i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h . There w a s a s m a l l amount of s c a t t . e r i n p i t c h (fig. 1 4 ) . When wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s were t r e a t e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n , a s w i l l be s u b s e q u e n t l y shown, a l o c a l Reynolds number e f f e c t was a p p a r e n t . The c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n e s were re-examined, a n d t h i s l o c a l Reynolds number e f f e c t w a s i n d i c a t e d (shown by t h e p o i n t s with t h e numbers i n d i c a t i n g l o c a l Reynolds number i n t h o u s a n d s ) . This a s s e s s m e n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t , f o r local Reynolds numbers g r e a t e r t h a n 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , c o e f f i c i e n t s based on l o c a l dynamic p r e s s u r e w i l l correlate w i t h l o c a l Mach number f o r 3 ' a n d 40° h a l € cones. 0

O r b i t e r T e s t s Analyzed
As the f i n a l d e s i g n p h a s e of t h e S h u t t l e c o n t i n u e d , a d e c i s i o n was made t o c o n s t r u c t h i g h - f i d e l i t y wind t u n n e l models f o r t h e most r e l e v a n t wind t u n n e l t e s t s f o r p r e f l i g h t data book v e r i f i c a t i o n . Because f u n d s w e r e l i m i t e d , a l l model r e q u e s t s c o u l d n o t be m e t . Therefore, high f i d e l i t y 2-percent and 5-percent models were c o n s t r u c t e d t o p r o d u c e a c c u r a t e wind t u n n e l da,ta f o r s u p e r s o n i c t o l a n d i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The d e c i s i o n w a s made t o u t i l i z e data o n t h e e x i s t i n g 140A/B a n d 140C c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t o supplement t h e h y p e r s o n i c a n a l y s i s . These d a t a c o v e r e d M-5 + 20 i n a v a r i e t y of f a c i l i t i e s ( f i g u r e 15) b o t h w i t h i n a n d o u t s i d e NASA t o c o v e r a r a n g e o f parameters of i n t e r e s t i n c l u d i n g y = l . 12 -t 1.667.

S i n c e r e a l - g a s v i s c o u s c a l c u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s b a s e d on local M a n d q might relate wind t u n n e l d a t a t o f l i q h t r e s u l t s , a t t e m p t s were made t o a p p l y t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n t o t h e h y p e r s o n i c d a t a b a s e . Tangent-cone relationship^'^ ( w i t h t h e
3 17

s m a l l - d i s t- r b a n c e a p p r o x i m a t i o n s removed) w e r e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s u Figure 16 presents t h e r e s u l t s € o r t h e 140A/B a n d 140C models ( M I , R,, Vi, e t c . ) . with z e r o c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s . Extensive scatter is seen, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t . Examination of t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e s t s i n which l a r g e v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s o c c u r r e d c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s c a t t e r . When t h e d a t a were grouped a c c o r d i n g t o l o c a l Reynolds number, a l o c a l Reynolds number e€Eect w a s i n d i c a t e d ( f i g . 1 7 ) . F o r a f a i r l y l a r g e r a n g e ( R , = 2 x lo6 - 40 X IO6) l i t t l e l o c a l Reynolds number e f f e c t i s i n d i c a t e d . A s t h e local Reynolds numbers d e c r e a s e ( 0 . 5 x IO6 + 1 x 106 ) , a s h i f t i n t h e t r e n d i s i n d i c a t e d . The lower v a l u e s oE Reynolds number t h a t i n d i c a t e l a r g e v i s c o u s - i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s d i d n o t c o v e r a s u f f i c i e n t r a n g e i n l o c a l Mach number t o a d e q u a t e l y d e t e r m i n e t r e n d s . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h e a n a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s of Figure 14 w e r e re-examined €or l o c a l Reynolds number e f f e c t s a n d b o t h t h e l o w e s t d e n s i t y wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s and f l i g h t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d p o s s i b l e l o c a l Reynolds number e f f e c t s €or v a l u e s o f R, l e s s t h a n a b o u t
106.

I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e working group a c t i v i t y , L a n g l e y a n a l y z e d Mach a n d number e f f e c t s f o r M 1_ 5 by u s i n g t h e continuum p a r a m e t e r s M , , R and VL. The e x p e r i m e n t a l l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w e r e c o r r e l a t e d =-40°/-1 1 . 7 O , O o / O o , w i t h ? a t a = 2 0 ° , 30°, a n a 40° f o r c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s of 6 / 6 ; and 10°/16.30. The s e l e c t e d r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d ( f i g s . 18221BFindicated t h e t r e n d s o b t a i n e d i n t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e s t u d y . The open symbols r e p r e s e n t d a t a on 0.010 a n d 0 . 0 1 5 s c a l e 140A/B o r b i t e r s , and t h e shaded symbols r e p r e s e n t d a t a for a s i n g l e 0 . 0 0 4 - s c a l e 140c o r b i t e r mounted o n a s i n g l e b a l a n c e - s t i n g c o m b i n a t i o n i n f i v e different facilities.

Reynolds

I n g e n e r a l , t h e CA ( f i g . 18) r e s u l t s remain w i t h i n a band of a p p r o x i m a t e l y f 0 . 0 0 5 i n cA ( e x c e p t i o n , n o t shown f o r 6 /6 1Oo/16.3O a t F ~ O O , h a s a w i d t h of f O . O 1 ) and e x h i b i t s a d e f i n i t e t r e n d w i t g Over a r a n g e o f ? from 0 . 0 0 5 t o ; 0 . 0 7 , t h e l e v e l o f CA a p p r o x i m a t e l y d o u b l e s which r e f l e c t s t h e i m p a c t of v i s c o u s interaction effects. Compared w i t h t h e magnitude of t h e s e v i s c o u s e f f e c t s , t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d o v e r a r a n g e of t h e r a t i o s of s p e c i f i c h e a t s (y=1.667 f o r h e l i u m , 1.4 f o r a i r and n i t r o g e n , and 1.12 f o r C F 4 ) i n d i c a t e l i t t l e e f f e c t on CA.

cT

The 5 r e s u l t s ( f i g . 19) g e n e r a l l y remain w i t h i n a band o f 20.03 a n d a r e relat i v e l y constant over t h e f k range of i n t e r e s t . A l s o , t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e change i n y has l i t t l e e f f e c t on 5 .

The Cm r e s u l t s ( f i g . 20) do n o t correlate as well w i t h ? ,: and t h e trends a r e n o t a s w e l l d e f i n e d . The w i d t h o f t h e d a t a hand i s on t h e o r d e r o f f 0 . 0 0 7 t o *0.01,
and t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d o v e r t h e y range g e n e r a l l y remain w i t h i n t h i s band. In F i g u r e 21 i s a n a t t e m p t t o summarize r e s u l t s of t h i s e x t e n s i v e d a t a b a s e . Ground g e n e r a l , t h e d a t a scatter a p p e a r s t o be bounded as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. f a c i l i t y tests with y v a r i a t i o n s ( 1 . 6 6 7 + 1.121, exceeding t h o s e encountered i n Finally, the f l i g h t , produced d a t a t h a t remained w i t h i n t h e o v e r a l l scatter band. ADDB27 a t t h e t i m e was a l i n e f a i r i n g t h a t d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h e o v e r a l l d a t a p a t t e r n , and recommendations were made t o modify t h e d a t a book t o more repres e n t a t i v e values.

Real/Ideal-Gas

Inviscid Calculations

I n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s on simple s h a p e s were b e i n g c o n t i n u a l l y u t i l i z e d t o p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t t o r e a l - vs i d e a l - g a s e € f e c t s . F o r example, f i g u r e 2 2

3 18

e

( b l u n t - b o d y method of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) i n d i c a t e s v a r y i n g M from 6-20 h a s l i t t l e e f f e . " t on p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r b l u n t e d 30° c o n e s . The same r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d t o show y e f f e c t s a t c o n s t a n t Mach number ( f i g . 23) show h i g h e r p r e s s u r e a t t h e n o s e a n d l o w e r p r e s s u r e on t h e a f t e r b o d y f o r y v a r y i n g from 1.667 -+ 1 . 1 2 . For a constant d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p l a n f o r m area, a nose-up p i t c h f o r d e c r e a s i n g y i s i n d i c a t e d .
A more r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s was u t i l i z e d i n t h e f i n a l part o f t h e working g r o u p ' s t h r e e - p a r t s t u d y . This a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d t h e m o s t advanced codes ( a v a i l a b l e ) t o i n d i c a t e t h e magnitude of i n v i s c i d r e a l / i d e a l g a s e f f e c t s on S h u t t l e - l i k e conf igurat i o n s ( f i g . 2 4 ) . C a l c u l a t i o n s were performed on a m o d i f i e d 140C S h u t t l e o r b i t e r a t ~ 2 u s5 n g ~t h e S u p e r s o n i c Three-Dimensional E x t e r n a l I n v i s c i d (STEIN)f low-f i e l d i code t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t of r e a l g a s on aerodynamics.28128 Two i d e a l - g a s condit i o n s ( ~ 1 . 4 ,Ma= 10.29 a n d ~ 1 . 1 2 ,Ma=26.1) a n d one r e a l - g a s c o n d i t i o n ( e q u i l i b r i u m a i r , M,=26.1 , a n d a l t i t u d e = 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 f t . ) were c a l c u l a t e d . The geometry of t h e o r b i t e r w a s modified by i n c r e a s i n g t h e wing sweep t o 55O t o e l i m i n a t e a p o c k e t o f s u b s m i c flow n e a r t h e wing t i p which would have p r e v e n t e d c o m p l e t i o n of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s . P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , shock s h a p e s , a n d aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s were compared t o q u a n t i f y i n v i s c i d r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . The r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n f i g u r e s 25-27.

1

'

The p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s i n t h e windward symmetry p l a n e f o r t h e y 1 . 4 a n d t h e e q u i l i b r i u m a i r cases a r e shown i n f i g u r e 25. I n t h e r e c o m p r e s s i o n r e g i o n ( Z = 3 6 0 525 i n ) , t h e p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e h i g h e r f o r t h e e q u i l i b r i u m a i r , b u t i n a l l o t h e r regions--and n o t a b l y i n t h e s t r o n g e x p a n s i o n r e g i o n toward t h e r e a r o f t h e v e h i c l e ( Z > l 0 5 0 i n ) - - t h e p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e lower f o r e q u i l i b r i u m a i r . A d d i t i o n a l u n p u b l i s h e d r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e Mach number e f f e c t i n t h e a b o v e r e s u l t s a s was shown on b l u n t c o n e s ( f i g . 2 2 ) . I n t e g r a t i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l manner p l a c e d i n p e r s p e c t i v e where d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a f f e c t e d p i t c h i n g moment ( f i g s . 26 a n d 2 7 ) . The i n c r e a s e d cP a t t h e n o s e when y d e c r e a s e d from 1.4 t o 1.12 a f f e c t e d p i t c h l i t t l e . P i t c h d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e p r i m a r i l y due t o r e d u c e d C n e a r t h e rear of t h e body w i t h c a l c u l a t i o n s € o r assumed e q u i l i b r i u m a i r h a v i n g f h e l e a s t a f t e r b o d y C a n d P t h e most i n d i c a t e d nose-up p i t c h . A d i r e c t comparison o f t h e i n t e g r a t e d aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s ( f i g . 2 7 ) € o r t h e STEIN code w i t h i d e a l - g a s f l o w modeled by u s i n g l o w y ( 1 . 1 . 2 ) i n d i c a t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same r e s u l t s a s u s i n g e q u i l i b r i u m a i r a t f l i g h t conditions. The d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n M=10.3 i d e a l - a i r w i n d t u n n e l c o n d i t i o n s a n d e q u i Zibrium-air e n t r y c o n d i t i o n s produced r e d u c t i o n s i n f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s on t h e o r d e r o f 10 p e r c e n t a n d a nose-up pitching-moment change of 0.023. Axial f o r c e c o e f E i c i e n t e x p e r i e n c e d v i r t u a l l y no change a s s h o u l d be e x p e c t e d . Two i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s s h o u l d be made a t t h i s t i m e . F i r s t , t h e s e a r e i n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s , a n d v i s c o u s e f f e c t s w i l l c a u s e a nose-down p i t c h . Second, t h e i n d i c a t e d y a n d / o r realg a s e f f e c t s were on t h e same o r d e r a s t h e r e p e a t a b i l i t y a n d / o r s c a t t e r i n t h e d a t a band s u p p o r t i n g t h e d a t a book. T h e r e f o r e , t r i m a n d c o n t r o l b o u n d a r i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e d a t a base w i t h r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s c o n s i d e r e d ill d e f i n e d b u t i n d i c a t e d t o be o n t h e same o r d e r a s t h e d a t a scatter.

ADDB €or t h e Hypersonic R e g i m e

T h e A Hoc Working Group was d i s s o l v e d a f t e r e x e r c i s i n g a l l a v a i l a b l e t o o l s t o d r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e of r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on o r b i t e r aerodynamics w i t h t h e main q u e s t i o n s t i l l unanswered. Many i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d such a s t h e i m p o r t a n c e of u t i l i z i n g t h e correct form of c o r r e l a t i o n parameters, a n d s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t t r a n s p o r t p r o p e r t i e s oE g a s e s . Gamma e f f e c t s were i n d i c a t e d t o be w i t h i n t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a base s c a t t e r
3 19

b y b o t h e x p e r i m e n t a l data a n d r e a l - g a s i n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s . The ADDB had b e e n m o d i f i e d t o be more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e s e r e s u l t s . Recommendations were made t o u p g r a d e real-gas c o d e s so t h e a c t u a l S h u t t l e geometry a n d a n g l e of a t t a c k c o u l d be t r e a t e d a n a l y t i c a l l y a n d t o o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l h y p e r s o n i c wind t u n n e l d a t a a t f l i g h t I n t h e i n t e r i m , ? c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h a n u n c e r t a i n t y band f o r data : R e y n o l d s numbers. s c a t t e r s h o u l d s t i l l be used. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d ( i n t h e A Hoc d Working Group) were r e q u e s t e d t o m o n i t o r t h e c o n t i n u i n g work a n d i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e program o f f i c e a n d p r i m e c o n t r a c t o r i n m a i n t a i n i n g a c u r r e n t d a t a book o n r e a l - g a s effects.
A s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, f u n d i n g l i m i t a t i o n s p r e v e n t e d t h e f a b r i c a t i o n of highf i d e l i t y models f o r h y p e r s o n i c t e s t i n g . However, t h e 2 - p e r c e n t " h i - f i " model was n o t t o o l a r g e f o r t e s t i n g i n t h e Naval S u r f a c e Weapons C e n t e r (NSWC) Tunnel 9. T h i s f a c i l i t y i s c a p a b l e o f m a t c h i n g f l i g h t Reynolds number w i t h t h e 2 - p e r c e n t o r b i t e r a t M=13.5 a n d h a s s u f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n a l r a n g e t o p r o d u c e ~:=0.01 data. T h e r e f o r e , t e s t s w e r e recommended t o p r o d u c e what was e x p e c t e d t o be t h e d a t a most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h i g h Mach number continuum f l i g h t c o n d i t J o n s a n d a n a n c h o r p o i n t f o r h i g h a l t i t u d e estimates.

T h e s e tests were c o n d u c t e d i n t h e s p r i n g o f '78 a n d i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e data book w i t h AEDC T u n n e l s A a n d B30 d a t a on t h e same 2 - p e r c e n t model a n d CALSPAN Hypers o n i c Shock Tunnel3' t e s t s on a 1 - p e r c e n t model. The r e s u l t s on t h e basic aeroO v e r a l l , nornral-force c o e f f i c i e n t was presumed dynamics are shown i n figures 28-30. t o be o n l y a f u n c t i o n of a a n d i n z e p e n d e n t o f Mach number and vL f o r M 1 10 . (fig. 28). I n i n s t a n c e s o f h i g h VH, where t h e d a t a book might n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e data, t h e t o t a l data base w a s c o n s i d e r e d , a n d e n g i n e e r i n g judgment w a s applied. Axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t w s c o n s i d e r e d c o n s t a n t w i t h Mach f o r 10 < M < 20 a n d a a f u n c t i o n of a o n l y ( f i g . 2 9 ) . For > 0 . 0 1 , CA was c o n s i d e r e d a f u n c t i o n of ? : a n d a , w i t h t h e CALSPAN d a t a , e x p e r i z n c e from p a s t c o r r e l a t i o n s , a n d e n g i n e e r i n g judgment g u i d i n g t h e f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t w a s c o n s i d e r e d a f u n c t i o n of a only f o r M > 10 ( f i g . 3 0 ) . L a n g l e y r e s e a r c h e r s c o n d u c t e d a n e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of t h e AEDC a n d ZSWC d a t a i n t h e continuum regime which i n d i c a t e d c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s w a s a d d i t i v e and t h a t increments added t o t h e basic a e r o d y n a m i c s p r o d u c e d a g r e e m e n t with tests of combined c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s . For t h e CALSPAN data, v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s of c o n t r o l s e t t i n g were n o t t e s t e d , a n d data r e p e a t a b i l i t y showed t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c scatter g e n e r a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o i m p u l s e facilities. Therefore, a s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s w a s not possible. However, body f l a p extremes f o r z e r o elevons, e l e v o n e x t r e m e s f o r zero body f l a p , a n d full maximum c o n t r o l s w e r e tested.

v'

F i g u r e 3 1 shows a n example of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e CALSPAN d a t a t o p r o v i d e data-book v a l u e s . Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t i s p r e s e n t e d €or t h e v a r i o u s c o n t r o l c o m b i n a t i o n s at a=4Oo. The s o l i d l i n e s for 6,,=Oo a n d 6e=-400, Oo, a n d 12.35O, a n d f o r 6e=O a n d $==-11.7 a n d -16.3 r e p r e s e n t b a s i c f a i r i n g s o f t h e data i n c l u d i n g i n t e r p o l a t i o n from one s e t t o a n o t h e r . The solid l i n e s f o r t h e bottom p o r t i o n of t h e figure h a v i n g combined c o n t r o l s are n o t f a i r i n g s b u t t h e sum of t h e f a i r i n g s i n t h e top two p o r t i o n s . Many i t e r a t i o n s on t h i s p r o c e d u r e w e r e t a k e n a t e a c h a n g l e o f a t t a c k before c u r v e s c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e t o t a l data base were produced. F i g u r e 32 shows t h e f i n a l r e s u l t i n t h e form of pitching-moment These c o e f f i c i e n t i n c r e m e n t due t o body-flap d e f l e c t i o n a s a f u n c t i o n of a a n d were a p p l i e d t o t h e basic s t a b i l i t y l e v e l s f o r z e r o c o n t r o l t o p r o d u c e t h e ADDB f o r combined c o n t r o l s i n t h e r e a l - g a s regime.

c;.

Approximately 10 y e a r s of work by a h o s t of e n g i n e e r s u s i n g s t a t e oE t h e a r t e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s w e r e applied t o estimate o r b i t e r a e r o d y n a m i c s

32D

i n t h e h y p e r s o n i c r e a l - and i d e a l - g a s regimes. As t h e f i r s t flight approached, r e a i g a s e f f e c t s producing variable shock-density r a t i o s ( t h e r e f o r e v a r i a b l e y) appeared t o f'all w i t h i n t h e s c a t t e r of t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e and were accoimted €or by a c c e p t a b l e t o l e r a n c e s and v a r i a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e program o f f i c e . S y s t e m a t i c v a r i a t i o n s of t h e aerodynamics i n t h e h i g h - a l t i t u d e r e a l - g a s regime were accounted f o r by c o r r e l a t i o n s with t h e v i s c o u s / s l i p parameter ? based on t h e b e s t a v a i l a S l e : m o d v l of f r e e - s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s (atmosphere)

.

Comparison t o Flight S u b s t a n t i a l . a n a l y s e s of S h u t t l e f l i g h t d a t a have been conducted :for t h e p a s t 2 y e a r s , and t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l c o n t i n u e f o r some t i m e a s t h e f l i g h t daiza base grows and t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r e x p e r i m e n t s program (OEX) produces more f 1 i q h . t r e s u l t s . irt a d d i t i o n , a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s have been r e c e n t l y developed a t LaRC to t r e a t the o r b i - t e r i n v i s c i d r e a l - g a s flow f i e l d and i n t e g r a t e t h e r e s u l t s t o pro9uce real-(gas perf'ormance e s t i m a t e s . A n e v a l u a t i o n of t h e adequacy of p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s of rea:.-gas e f f e c t s , however, depends upon r e s u l t s of t h e f i r s t 5 f l i g h t s . Young e,t al.' concluded t h a t performance p r e d i c t i o n s . w e r e adequate throughout. the speed rancle w i t h f o r c e s g e n e r a l l y p r e d i c t e d w i t h i n 10 p e r c e n t i n t h e hyperslmic regime, b u t t r i m ( o r b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment) p r e d i c t i o n s were l e s s t h a n s a t i s f a c t o r y above Mach 10. F o r example, aerodynamics i n t h e ADDB i n d i c a t e d a 7.5 degree d e f l e c t i o n of t h e body f l a p would be r e q u i r e d f o r t r i m f o r t h e c e n t e r - o f - g r a v i t y l o c a t i o n and v e h i c l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r STS-1. In r e a l i t y , t h e body f l a p had t o d e f l e c t t o m u c h lar5rer v a l u e s ( 6 = 1 6 O ) t o maintain t r i m a t t h e proper a n g l e of a t t a c k ( a=4Oo ) BF T h i s " h y p e r s o n i c anomaly" i s shown i n f i g u r e 33 by comparing body flajp d e f l e c t i o n s from STS-1 t o t h e nominal ADDB value. For Mach numbers above 1 8 , was g e n e r a l l y greater t h a n 15. A s t h e v e h i c l e d e c e l e r a t e d below W 1 8 , t h e r e q u i r e d trim d e f l s c t s o r g r a d u a l l y d e c r e a s e d u n t i l W 8 where f l i g h t and ADDR v a l u e s a g r e e d .

.

bF

I n g e n e r a l , S h u t t l e f l i g h t d a t a have been a n a l y z e d by s p o t t i n g wind t u n n e l p o i r t s on t h e f l i g h t d a t a . For t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e o p p o s i t e approach af s p o t t i r , g f l i q h t v a l u e s on s p e c i f i c wind t u n n e l data produced some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . I n i t . j . a l comparisons were made with p r e l i m i n a r y f l i g h t d a t a , a n assumeti 67 percs;l:. c . g . l o c a t i o n , and wind t u n n e l c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s . These rough comparisons i-mplied some low d e n s i t y wind t u n n e l d a t a i n d i c a t e d l a r g e body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n s might be r e q u i r e d f o r t r i m i n t h e r e a l - g a s regime.
These comparisons were re-examined after STS-1 f i n a l pass f l i g h t d a t a was a v a i l a b l e by t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s t o t h e b e s t estimatc2d c.g. (66.55 percent L) and u s i n g , l i n e a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e wind t u n n e l ' d a t a t o produce e s t i m a t e s o f t h e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s v s a a t t h e e x a c t f l i g h t cont-rol s e t t i n g s . T h r e e p a r t i c u l a r t u n n e l t e s t s (LA 79, O A 1 0 9 , O ~ 1 7 1 ) ~ were 5 ~ - ~ use:l F , - r coIy>arisori. The r e s u l t s ( f i g . 3 4 ) i n d i c a t e d t h e r e w a s good agreement between wind t u n n e l d a t a awl f l i c r h t f o r a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t and l i f t - d r a g r a t i o . L i f t , d r a g , and normalf o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e o v e r p r e d i c t e d by about 10 p e r c e n t ( f i g . 3 4 ) . T h e s e r e s u l t s were c o n s i s t e n t f o r a l l t h r e e sets o f wind t u n n e l d a t a . The i n t e r p o l a t e d w i n d t u n n e l d a t a Cor pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t i n helium a t M=20 (y=1.'36'7, OA109), 3 3 i n d i c a t e d f l i g h t c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s would produce t r i m a t a b o u t a=20" w i t h a p i t c h The low d e n s i t y r e s u l t s decrement between wind t u n n e l and f l i g h t of a b o u t +0.0235. (: 1 7 = 0 . 0 3 5 / ~ ~ 7 9i) ~n i t r o g e n i n d i c a t e d f l i g h t c o n t r o l s would t r i m t h e v e h i c l e a t n ~ a=35" with a p i t c h decrement of + 0 . 0 1 4 a t a c t u a l f l i g h t t r i m c 0 n d i t i . o . i ~ . R:lt t . h s d a t a p r o j e c t e d t o be t h e most accurate b e f o r e t h e € l i g h t (NSWC 0 , C!n.l.71)35 i - n d i c a t e d f l i g h t c o n t r o l s would n o t t r i m t h e v e h i c l e f o r a=2Oo + 50° and showed a p i t c h decrement of +0.0302 a t f l i g h t t r i m c o n d i t i o n s .

These comparisons f o r p a r t i c u l a r wind t u n n e l t e s t s c o u l d be f o r t u i t o u s , b u t examination base? on knowledge of t h e o r i g i n of p r e f l i g h t estimates and r e s u l t s from STS- 1 s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s . P r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s i n d i c a t e d boundary l a y e r t r a n s i t i o n would o c c u r on t h e o r b i t e r n e a r Mach 16. STS-1 h e a t i n g measurements i n d i c a t e d boundary l a y e r t r a n s i t i o n d i d n o t o c c u r u n t i l Mach numbers on t h e T h e r e f o r e , f o r most of t h e h y p e r s o n i c p o r t i o n of e n t r y o r d e r of 1 0 were reached. t h e body f l a p w a s i m m e r s e d i n a laminar boundary l a y e r . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h e Mach 13.5 t e s t s were conducted i n NSWC Tunnel 9 f o r t h e e x p r e s s purpose o f p r o d u c i n g an anchor p o i n t f o r t h e h y p e r s o n i c continuum d a t a book because f l i g h t Reynolds numbers c o u l d be o b t a i n e d and c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s d a t a i n a t u r b u l e n t boundary l a y e r would b e produced. A s h a s been shown, t h e s e d a t a i n d i c a t e d 7.5 d e g r e e s d e f l e c t i o n on t h e body f l a p were r e q u i r e d f o r t r i m . T h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s ( f i g . 2 7 ) had p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d nose-up p i t c h o f 0 . 0 2 3 t o 0 . 0 2 5 f o r y v a r i a t i o n s from 1 . 4 t o f l i g h t . The i d e a l - g a s h e l i u m data (M=20, y=1.667, = 0 . 0 0 8 , l a m i n a r boundary l a y e r ) showed t h e same degree of nose-up p i t c h f o r a w i d e r r a n g e of y . The i d e a l - g a s low-density n i t r o g e n d a t a (M=18, y=1.4, 7; = 0.035, l a m i n a r boundary l a y e r ) produced t r i m ' a n g l e s c l o s e s t t o f l i g h t v a l u e s w i t h p i t c h d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n d a t a accuracy. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s s i m p l i f i e d a n a l y s i s based on o n l y 3 d a t a p o i n t s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s account f o r sone of t h e " h y p e r s o n i c anomaly" i n t e r m s of a s m a l l nose p i t c h a s i n d i c a t e d by p r e f l i g h t estimates, a b o u t 50 p e r c e n t i s due t o reduced c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s b e c a u s e t h e boundary l a y e r w a s l a m i n a r i n s t e a d of t u r b u l e n t a s expected.

"1

A f t e r STS-1, a c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t w a s made t o upgrade r e a l - g a s computer codes a s A p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n of t h e HALIS code36 being a f l i g h t data analysis tool. developed a t Langley w a s used i n a n a n a l y s i s of STS-3 p r e s s u r e measurements. F i g u r e 35 compares an o r b i t e r w i n d w a r d c e n t e r l i n e pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n computed by

HALIS

(assuming y=1.4 a n d ~ 1 . 1 8 )with p r e s s u r e measurements from STS-3. The HALIS p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s w e r e used a s i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n s for computing 2-D

o b l i q u e shock jump c o n d i t i o n s t o d e f i n e t h e o r e t i c a l p r e s s u r e l e v e l s f o r a 10" body f l a p (STS-3 c o n d i t i o n s ) . The p r e s s u r e rise i s d i f f e r e n t f o r y=1.4 and ? = l . 18 cond i t i o n s b u t t h e nondimensional pressure l e v e l on t h e body f l a p a p p e a r s t h e same f o r b o t h and i s i n p r o x i m i t y w i t h t h e f l i g h t l e v e l s . T h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s p i t c h d i f f e r e n c e s a r e due t o p r e s s u r e l e v e l s ahead of t h e body f l a p i n t h e expansion r e g i o n a s h a s been p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d . This a n a l y s i s i s a d m i t t e d l y l i m i t e d , b u t H A L I S development h a s p r o g r e s s e d and i s p r e s e n t l y b e i n g a p p l i e d t o c a l c u l a t e t h e complete r e a l - g a s i n v i s c i d flow f i e l d o v e r t h e orbiter.

CONCLUDING REMARKS P r e f l i g h t e s t i m a t e s of t h e r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on t h e h y p e r s o n i c aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r w e r e based o n a d i v e r s e series of r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s . Real-gas v i s c o u s c a l c u l a t i o n s on simple s h a p e s attempted t o q u a n t i f y r e a l / i d e a l v i s c o u s / i n v i s c i d e f f e c t s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n v i s c i d p r e s s u r e dominated t h e f o r c e system, and v i s c o u s c o r r e l a t i o n parameters c o u l d n o t r e l a t e wind t u n n e l d a t a t o f l i g h t v a l u e s . Real-gas e f f e c t s w e r e i n d i c a t e d t o r e d u c e f o r c e s and moments. I n v i s c i d c a l c u l a t i o n s on winged l i f t i n g s h a p e s i n d i c a t e d reduced f o r c e s and a s l i g h t nose-up p i t c h r e s u l t e d because of r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . A n a l y s i s of t h e e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e i n d i c a t e d v i s c o u s c o r r e l a t i o n parameters provided t h e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e e x t r a p o l a t i o n technique f o r e s t i m a t i n g f l i g h t aerodynamics. D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e aerodynamics produced by v a r y i n g t h e r a n g e of r a t i o s of s p e c i f i c h e a t s , which was t h e o n l y t o o l a v a i l a b l e f o r a t t e m p t i n g t o
322

,experi.mentally model r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s , a p p e a r e d t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e t o l e r a n c e s a n d v a r i a t . i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d a b o u t t h e ADDB d e r i v e d from v i s c o u s c o r r e l a t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , .an e x t e n s i v e t h r e e - p a r t s t u d y u s i n g s t a t e o f t h e a r t t e c h n i q u e s produced c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t .s

.

F l a c i n g S h u t t l e r e a l - g a s aerodynamics i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s u b j e c t c o n f e r e n c e i s somewhat p r e l i m i n a r y ; however, some l e s s o n s have been l e a r n e d . F i r s t , it h a s been shown t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n s s h o u l d b e u s e d i n complete form a l o n g w i t h s t a t e of t h e a r t t r a n s p o r t p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e f l u i d medium ( f l i g h t o r t e s t g a s ) . Second, r e a l - g a s e f f e c t . s do c a u s e some nose-up p i t c h b e c a u s e o f t h e e x p a n s i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t t h e rear cf t h e v e h i c l e . However, t h e s t a t e of t h e boundary l a y e r a n d i t s e f f e c t o n Zontrcbl e f f e c t i v e n e s s may be a c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l h y p e r s o n i c t r i m anomaly. T h i r d , t h e development o f c o d e s such a s H A L I S i s c r i t i c a l t o r e s o l v i n g t h e s e i s s u e s . However, s i n c e H X I S i s a n i n v i s c i d code, r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l s t i l l have 1 0 coaplete model of h i g h - a l t i t u d e r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on S h u t t l e - l i k e v e h j c l e s . 1 F i v e d a t a p o i n t s ( f i v e f l i g h t s ) do n o t make a d a t a base, so t h e l e a r n i n g H o p e f u l l y , w i t h t h e S h u t t l e r e t u r n i n g t o E a r t h on a f a i r l y process c o n t i n u e s . r o u t i n e basis, s u f f i c i e n t d a t a w i l l be accumulated t o complement advanced computer codes such a s H A L I S i n u p g r a d i n g t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t o f r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s on t h e a e r o d y n a m i c s t a b i l i t y and t r i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e s p a c e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems.

323

REFERENCES

1.

Nagel, A . L . ; a n d Thomas, A. C.: A n a l y s i s of t h e C o r r e l a t i o n of Wind Tunnel AIAVNASA F l i g h t T e s t i n g a n d Ground T e s t Data t o F l i g h t T e s t R e s u l t s . Conference i n H u n t s v i l l e , A l a , February 15-17, 1965. W h i t f i e l d , J. D. S l e n d e r Cones.
i

2.

and G r i f f i t h , B. J. : Hypersonic V i s c o u s Drag E f f e c t s on B l u n t A I A A J o u r n a l , v o l . 2 , no. 1 0 , October 1964. J o u r n a l of

3.

T s i e n , Hsue-Shen: Superaerodynamics, Mechanics of R a r e f i e d Gases. t h e A e r o n a u t i c a l S c i e n c e s , pp. 653-664, December 1946.

4.

L e e s , L.; and P r o b s t e i n , R. F . : Hypersonic V i s c o u s Flow Over a F l a t P l a t e . 1952. Qept. N o . 195, Dept. Aero. Eng., P r i n c e t o n Univ., P r i n c e t o n , N . J . , S i e r o n , Thomas R.; a n d M a r t i n e z , Conrad, Jr.: E f f e c t s and A n a l y s i s of Mach N u m b e r a n d Reynolds N u m b e r on Laminar S k i n F r i c t i o n a t Hypersonic Speeds. A p r i l 1965. T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t N o . AFFDL-TR-65-5, B e r t r a m , M. H.: 6.8 a n d 9.6. Boundary Layer Displacement E f f e c t s i n A i r a t Mach N u m b e r s o f NASA TR R-22, 1959.

5.

6.

7.

B e r t r a m , M. H.; and Henderson, A.: E f f e c t s of Boundary L a y e r Displacement and L e a d i n g Edge B l u n t n e s s on P r e s s u r e D i s t r i b u t i o n , S k i n F r i c t i o n and Heat T r a n s f e r of B o d i e s a t Hypersonic Speeds. NACA T 4301, J u l y 1958. N B e r t r a m , M i t c h e l H. : Hypersonic Laminar V i s c o u s I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s on t h e herodynamics o f Two-Dimensional Wedge and T r i a n g u l a r Planform Wings. N A S A TN D-3523, August 1966. Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System T e c h n i c a l Symposium. J u l y 1970. NASA TMX 52876, vel. 1,

8.

9.

10.

N S Space S h u t t l e Technology Conference, vol. 1, Aerothermodynamics, AA March 1, 1971. C o n f i g u r a t i o n s a n d F l i g h t Mechanics. N S TMX 2272. AA Holloway, P a u l F.: O p e r a t i o n a l Aspects o f Space S h u t t l e . P r e s e n t e d a t t h e s h o r t course High A l t i t u d e Aspects of L i f t i n g R e e n t r y V e h i c l e s , Rhodes S a i n t - G e n e s e , Belgium, May 24-27, 197 1. G e n t r y , A . E . : Hypersonic Arbitrary-Body Aerodynamic Computer Program. Douglas A i r c r a f t C o r p o r a t i o n Report 61552, A p r i l 1968. Advanced Technology and t h e Space S h u t t l e . Love, Eugene S.: 1 0 t h Von Karman L e c t u r e , A I A A P a p e r No. 73-31, J a n u a r y 1973. Aerodynamic Design D a t a Book. Volume I O r b i t e r V e h i c l e , Rept. N o . S D 2 -S H- 0 0 60 1C , RD ck w e 1 I n t e r n a t i o n a 1, A p r i 1 197 3. 7 1

11.

12.

13.

14.

-

-

15.

P r o b s t e i n , Ronald F.: I n t e r a c t i n g Hypersonic Flow Over a Cone. Tech. R e p o r t A F 2798, D i v i s i o n o f E n g i n e e r i n g , Brown U n i v e r s i t y , P r o v i d e n c e , Rhode I s l a n d , March 1955.

3 24

I
~

16.

Ashby, G. C., Jr.: E x p e r i m e n t a l Boundary Layer Edge Mach Numbers f o r Two S p a c e S h u t t l e Orbiters a t Hypersonic Speeds, NASA TN D-6574, F e b r u a r y 1972.
t Masek, R. V.; a n d Mockapetris, L. J. : A n a l y t i c a l Comparison o f F i v e l , H. Hypersonic F l i g h t and Wind Tunnel V i s c o u s / I n v i s c i d Flow F i e l d s . NASA CR-2489, F e b r u a r y 1975.

17.

J.

18.

F i v e l , H. J.; and Masek, R. V : . A n a l y t i c a l Comparison of Hypersonic F l i g h t a n d NASA Wind Tunnel V i s c o u s / I n v i s c i d Flow F i e l d s Check Case and Users Manual. CR- 132359, J u l y 1973.
Cebeci, T., Smith, A . M. 0.; and Wang, L. D.: A F i n i t e - D i f f e r e n c e Method f o r McDonnell C a l c u l a t i n g c o m p r e s s i b l e Laminar and T u r b u l e n t Boundary L a y e r s . D o u g l a s R e p o r t DAC-67131, P a r t I, March 1969.

19.

20.

C t s b e c i , T . ; Smith, A. M. 0 . ; and Mosinskis, G.: C a l c u l a t i o n of C o m p r e s s i b l e A I A A P a p e r N o . 69-687, J u n e 1969. A d i a b a t i c T u r b u l e n t Boundary Layers.
BILottner, F. G. : Chemical Nonequilibrium Boundary Layer. N o . 63-443, August 1963.
'

2 1.

A I A A Paper

22.

C u r t i s , J. T.; a n d Strom, C. R : . Computations of t h e N o n e q u i l i h r i u m Flow of a V i s c o u s , R a d i a t i n g F l u i d About a B l u n t Axisymmetric Body, Volume I: E q u a t i o n s and R e s u l t s . AFFDL-TR-67-40, V o l . 1, J u n e 1967. Bertram, M i t c h e l H.: Comment on " V i s c o s i t y o f A i r . " p a g e 287, v o l . 4 , no. 2, F e b r u a r y 1967. J o u r n a l of S p a c e c r a f t ,

23.

24.

A Summary of V i s c o s i t y and Heat Conduction Data f o r He, A , H,, Keyes, F. G.: T r a n s . Am. SOC. Mech. E n g r s . , V o l . 7 3 , 1 9 5 r , 02, N2, CO, C02, H20, a n d A i r , pp. 589-596.

25.

Kc?yes, F. G.: The B e s t C o n d u c t i v i t y , V i s c o s i t y , S p e c i f i c Heat and P r a n d t l Number €or T h i r t e e n Gases. P r o j e c t Squid, M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e of Technology ,
T R 37, 1952.
J. L ; J o n e s , R. A , ; and Woods, W. C.: . I n v e s t i g a t i o n of R e a l - G a s and Viscous E f f e c t s on t h e Aerodynamics C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a 40° Half-Cone With NASA TN D-8418, J u n e 1977. Suggested Correlations f o r t h e S h u t t l e O r b i t e r .

26.

Hunt,

27.

Aerodynamic Design Data Book. Volume I O r b i t e r Vehicle. SD72-SH-0060-1J, Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , D e c . 1975.

-

Rept. N o .

28.

Marconi, Frank; S a l a s , Manuel; and Yaeger, L a r r y : Development of a Computer Code for C a l c u l a t i n g t h e S t e a d y Super/Hypersonic I n v i s c i d Flow Around Real
Configurations.

Volume I

-

Computational Technique.

NASA CR-2675,

1976.

29.

Meirconi, Frank; and Yaeger, L a r r y : Development of a Computer Code f o r C a l c u l a t i n g t h e S t e a d y Super/Hypersonic I n v i s c i i l Flow Around Real 1 Code D e s c r i p t i o n . NASA CR-2676, 1976. Configurations. Volume 1

-

30.

MFlam, M . D.; Vaughan, J. E.; and Moser, M. M . , Jr.: R e s u l t s of I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on a 0.015 S c a l e 140 A b Configure Space S h u t t l e V e h i c l e . NASA CR-134429,
Jan. 1975. 325

31.

Burrows, R.: Marroquin, Rogers, C. E: S a r v e r , D. A.; and Vaughan, J. E.: . Wind Tunnel T e s t OA113 of t h e 0 . 0 1 S c a l e Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Model 51-0 on t h e CATSPAN Hypersonic Shock Tunnel. N S CR-1441574, J u l y 1975. AA Jones, C.; Romere, Paul 0.; and Kanipe, David B.: Space S h u t t l e E n t r y Aerodynamic Comparisons of F l i q h t , With P r e f l i g h t F’redictions. AIAA Paper 8 1-2476, Nov. f98 1.

J.;

32. Young, James C.;

33. Hawthorne, P. J.; S a r v e r , D A.; and Lave, R. B.: . R e s u l t s of a 0.004-Scale 1 4 0 C Modified C o n f i g u r a t i o n Space S h u t t l e V e h i c l e Orbiter Model (74-0) i n t h e N S CIE-141532, May 1975. AA Langley Research C e n t e r Hypersonic H e l i u m Tunnel.

34. Keel, A. G . ,

Jr.; and Knott, J.: S t a t i c - S t a b i l i t y T e s t i n g of t h e 0.004-Scale Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r i n t h e White Oak Mach 18 Hypervelocity Research Tunnel. Naval S u r f a c e weapons C e n t e r , White Oak L a b o r a t o r y Wind-Tunnel Report NO. 109, J a n 1976.

35. Daileda, J.; Woods, W. C.; A s h b y , G. C. , Jr.; Hersey, D. W.; and R e s u l t s of Tests Using a 0.020 S c a I e Model (105-0) McDonald, G. G.: Space S h u t t l e v e h i c l e orbiter i n t h e Naval S u r f a c e Weapons C e n t e r H y p e r v e l o c i t y Tunnel 9. NASA CR-151764, O c t . 1978.
36. Weilmuenster, K.

J.

of t h e

James; and H a m i l t o n , H Iiarris, 11: High Angle of Attack . I n v i s c i d Flow C a l c u l a t i o n s Over S h u t t l e Like V e h i c l e s w i t h Comparisons t o Experimental Data. N S TP-2103, 1983. AA

37. LOMX, H.; and Inouye, M.: Numerical A n a l y s i s of Flow P r o p e r t i e s About B l u n t B o d i e s Moving a t S u p e r s o n i c Speeds i n a n E q u i l i b r i u m G a s . NASA TR-R-204, J u l y 1964. 38.
Aerodynamic Design Data Book. Vol. I Orbiter V e h i c l e 102, R e p t . N o . SD72-SH-0060-1KI Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , Nov. 1977. Aerodynamic Design Data Book. V o l . I O r b i t e r V e h i c l e 1 0 2 , R e p t . No. SD72-SH-0060-1LI Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , O c t . 1978.

-

39.

-

326

-OF POOR QUALITY

CROSS RANGE, NAUTICAL MILES

4

-2400
/

0

3
ALT ITU DE,
feet

2

ITUDE EFFECTS

11

.001
F i g u r e 1.-

1

.005

I .01
vco/

I

.05

I .1

I

I
1.0

.5

Variation o f correlation parameter during entry.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EFFECTS
0

I N V I S C I D - NEWTONIAN PLUS PRANDTL MEYER EXPANSION O V l S C O l l S - L A M I N A R SKIN FRICTIOh PLUS V I S C O U S - I N V I S C I D IhTERACTIONS WIND-TUNNEL COMPARISONS JNVISCI Ci MACH 10.4 M A C H 20.3

-

TANGENT CONE PLUS PRANDTL MEYER EXPANS ION (HELIUM) NEWTONIAN PLUS PRANDTL MEYER EXPANS ION

VISCOUS

-

L A M I N A R S K I N FRICTION PLUS V l S C O U S INV I SC I0 INTERACT IONS NORTH AMERICAN ORBITER 1?4D

. Figure 2 - Approach f o r determining high-altitude e f f e c t s .
327

ORIGINAL P U E OF POOR QUALtTY

F s

V'
L

00

.0007
-

- - - .0174 - - - .0547

.1643

LID

Figure 3.- Predicted performance v a r i a t i o n a t

h i g h altitude.

SOLID SYMBOLS ARE THEORETICAL INVl SCI D CALCULATIONS. FLAGGED SYMBOLS ARE M = 10.03 DATA. OPEN SYMBOLS ARE M = 20 HELIUM DATA

0

.004

.OM .012

.016

0

.002

. M O

.006

.om

Moo (Re 1-1/ 2 9 L
F i g u r e 4 . - Drag correlation using
320

-

V' 00

v:.

(From ref. 13.)

30r

.

\
A I R AND N2
TUNNELS

\

COLD WALL = 250K

HOT WALL ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY, ,T

1
0

,2

.4

. 6

.8

1.0

c:,
F i g u r e 5.- V a r i a t i o n of Cd, w i t h Mach number f o r ground f a c i l i t i e s and f l i g h t .

0 CALS PAN
GLaRC

CONDITIONS FOR: a LaRC He
0 FLIGHT (8920)

N2

01

A.
.01

.1

1.0

10

100

1000

.0001 .001

O

l

.01

l

,1

p

10 .

,

'ol.oool

u
.001 .01
.1 1.0

.all

.OOOI

, .mi

,
.ni

I

.i

1.0

,

M00 /
F i g u r e 6.-

K m

Correlation of estimated Shuttle axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t based on 1 5 O cone a x i a l f o r c e per u n i t s u r f a c e a r e a n o n d i m e n s i o n a l i z e d by o r b i t e r reference conditions.
329

IDEAL/REAL GAS V I SCOUS/ INV I SC ID
BLUNTED CONES

CALCULATloNS

I

I DEAL GAS V I scous ORB ITER

~CFARACTERISTICS

1 DEAUREAL GAS 1N V I S C I D
MODIFIED ORBITER

CALCU LAT ION S

Figure 7.-

Investigation of combined real-gas viscous-interaction

e f f e c t s on o r b i t e r aerodynamic c o n d i t i o n s .

ORB ITER AERODY N A M I CS

CALCULATED REAL-GAS EFFECTS ON BLUNT CONES

cf’

cf’
AERODYNAMICS

cf’

Figure 8.- F l o w models considered by A Hoc Working Group. d

330

a

INV ISC ID

IDEAL-GAS AND EQUILIBRIUM FLOW FIELDS LOMAX AND INOUYE37 F IN ITE-RATE FLOW FIELDS CURTIS AND STROM’~
VlSCOUS

IDEAL-GAS FLOW FIELDS CEBEC I ’2o EQUILIBRIUM AND FINITE-RATE FLOW FIELDS BLOTTNER 21
Figure 9.- Computer codes utilized in the blunt cone analytical investigation.

CON DIT IONS

FLIGHT EQUILIBRIUM FLIGHT NONEQUILIBRIUM O M = 8 AIR
0 0

A

M = 19 N2 b M = 20 He 0 M = 6.2 CF4

8 cp

elk
I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 10.- Correlation o f CD due to skin friction with viscous parameter (using Sutherland’s T-).I relationship for air and nitrogen).
331

CON DIT IONS
0 FLIGHT EQUILIBRIUM
A

M M

=

19 N2

o FLIGHT NONEQUlLlBRlUM O M = 8 AIR

[ M = 1

20 HE

D

=

6.2 CFq

‘08 .06

1

A

A

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

v;
Figure 11.- Correlation of CD due to skin friction with viscous

parameter (using Keyes’ T-p relationship for air and N 2 ) . 24,25

cD

.6 -

e = 300
n
A
k i
h

O&=r

0
Q M = 8.0AlR
A

0 FLIGHT EQUILIBRIUM 0 FLIGYT NONEQUlLlBRlUM

M = 20.0 N2 0 M = 20.0 HE

332

1.0

r

e=400

I
.4

e=300

L

0 FLIGHT EQUILIBRIUM
0 FLIGHT NONEQUlLlBRlUM I I I

h M = 20.0 HE
0 M = 6.2 CF4

I 0'

1

.01

.02

.03

.04

F i g u r e 13.- C o r r e l a t i o n of CD with

7' 1'

'.04
.02

0 FLIGHT E Q U I L I B R I U M 0 FLIGHT N ON EQU lLlB R lU M

0 8.0
A 20.0

1.4 1.4

AIR

N2

h00 2.

1.667 H ,

C

0

m, q1

-.02
-.04
,

&
I

NUMBERS SYMBOLS DESIGNATE R , x BY
I

-.06

I

I

I

1

1

0
F i g u r e 14.-

1

2

3

4

5

6

Correlation of calculations.

C,y q 1 w i t h

Mo, f o r b l u n t - c o n e

3 33

CAPABILITY

TEST

VA

TEST
X

I

TEST

M ,

MODEUSCALE

FACILITY

RmlR

10-6

Rm,Lx

10-6

lo3

1
I

I
LA46 LA52
LA47 OA2K 4.6 LaRC/ .010

140A/ B CONF I GURAT I O N

I

6.0 10.3
4.6

1

49-01 .015

OM A
l

l

OA87 OA77 OA77 OA78

4.6 5.3
6.0 8.0 10.0 10.3 10.3 16

QA87
I

OA90 OA81

49-01 .015 72-0/. 010
51-0/.010 51-0!. 010

51-0/ .010

OAW OA109 lA79

19.8

20.
18

74-O/

.OM

74-01.004

LaRC uprn LaRC 2G" LaRC CFHT LaRC UPWT LTV 4' ARC 3.5' AEDC B AEDC B AEDC C ARC 3.5' LaRC CFHT AEDC F CALSPAN CALSPAN AEDC F 14oc cc IdRC CF4 LaRC 20" LaRC N 2 LaRC He NSW!C 8A

0.5 -2.5

0.3-4.7 0.3 - 3.6 0.3-2.4

1.6. 3. g 7 . 5 0.8, 3. & 5.6 1.3&3.0
3.0

0.06-2.0 0.5 - 2.5
0.5 - 1.7 .03- 13+

0.6, 1, & 1.3 0.5 & 1.2 0.3& .6

2.0 - 4.4 3.1 - 8.2 5 . 3 & 7.8 5.5 6-11 12 & 26 14 Ei 45.9 41 Ei 68 30 & 50

1.0- 10 0.5 - 0.8
0.23

15.1 & 12.5 7.8 41

- 0.7

0.26

6:5 - IU ?5

Figure 1 5 . - O r b i t e r t e s t s a n a l y z e d .

AND q1 FROM TAN-CONE LOCAL FLOW

0
0

0
A

v
h
0
0

v
u
0

.1 1

M FACILITY 6 AEDCB 8 AEDCB 10 A E D C C 10.3 ARC 3.5' 16 CALSPAN 4.6 LTV 4' 10 CALSPAN 18 NSWC 8A 5.3 ARC 3.5'

OL'

I

I

J

w

20 LaRC He 16 A E D C F 6.1 LaRC CFd

LL
0 2

I

I

I

3

4

5

- .n? L --

I

I

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 16.- Orbiter h y p e r s o n i c d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n . F 140C at a = 300, 6 = O o , ~ B = 0'.
e

140AlB and

3 34

----

--

RZX

2 .5

-

48
1

.O4 - .05

L
0 2
3
4 M I 5

-.02

L
0 2

3
MZ

4

/

E

Figure 1 7 . - O r b i t e r hypersonic d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n . 140C a t a = 30°, 6, = O o , 6BF = .0 '

140A/B and

SYMBOL
OPEN SHADED
0-400 .05

ORBITER 140A/ 140 C

B

5 '

P

M

FACILITY

0 6

re-

AEDC B 0 8 AEDC B 0 10 AEDC C *lo. 3 ARC 3.5'
.15
b 4.6

bo%

LRC UPWT

0

5.3

A 0 10 ' .10 v10 V 16 0 16 ,05 019 '19 '20
4 6 e 6.1

4 8

ARC 3.5' LRC CFHl CALSPAN CALSPAN AEDC F AEDC F LRC N2 LRC He LRC 20" LRC CF4 NSWC 8A

Figure 18.- O r b i t e r CA d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n .

= Oo,

6,~ . = ' 0

335

1.0

SYMBOL OPEN SHADED

ORBITER MOA/ B 140 C -.e -- -

. -

6e

=

Oo,

~ B F Oo

M

FACILITY AEDC B AEDC B AEDC C ARC 3.5' LRC U P W ARC 3.5' LRC CFWT CALSPAN CALSPAN AEDC F AEDC F LRC N p LRC He LRC 20" LRC CF4 NSWC 8A

+-&+a

- - e-

o 6 o 8
010 A 10.3 n 4.6 A 5.3

010 010
016

016
0 19

t

V19
W20
6

6

v 6.1

418

Figure 19.- O r b i t e r CN d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n .
6, =

oo,

6BF

oo.

a

=

30'
M

.08-

.a0Crn
-

SYMBOL CONFIGURATION OPEN 140 A / B 0 6 CLOSED 140 C a 8 c 10 A 10.3 b 4.6

FACILITY

-.a

0"lO"
-.08
I /
/

-.12 -

a,-*

-

---%:>---O-*pL.I

c

-A-

0

AEDC B AEDC B AEDC C ARC 3.5' LTV 4' b 4.6 LRC UPWT 0 5.3 ARC 3.5' LRC CFHT 0 10 v 10 CALSPAN Q 16 CALSPAN AEDC F 0 16 V 19 LRC N2 @ 20 LRC He 6 LRC 20''

I

I

I

' I l l

Figure 20.- Baseline Cm d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n .

c1 =

30°.

336

27

0.15
Y

'A

0.10

W

1.67
1.4 A I R

0.05

q = 20 psf

2 psf

0.6 1

I

I

I

,

I

I l l 1

,001

Ti'

.01

.1

Figure 21.- O r b i t e r data correlation with CL = 30'9 de/&, = -40°/-11.70.

?A.

SONIC POINT
cP
= 1,4
0
0 -

cP

Moo

-10
20

6

e---1,6 O
r

0'

I

I

I

I

1

.Do1 .01

"1

1.0
Z/ Rn

10.0 100.0

Figure 22.- Effect of , M

on C

P

for constant y.

337

SONIC

cP

r
1.4

e

2.0
1.6 1.2

.a
.4

Ma

=

20

+----1.667

.o
I. 6 1.2

.a
.4

.ON

.01

.I
Z f R,

1.0

10

100

Figure 23.- Effect of y O R Cp f o r

constant & , .

0

APPROACH

COMPUTE l N V l SCI D FLOW FIELD OVER "MODI FI ED" 140-C SHUllLE ORBITER USING GRUMMAN 3-0 I N V I S C I D CODE (STEIN) 28,29 8 a = 2 5 O , ALTITUDE = 240000 FEET FOR FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
(a) Y = 1.4, Moo= 10.29

(b) y = 1.12, M o o = 26.1

1

IDEAL GAS

( c ) EQUILIBRIUM A I R CHEMISTRY, M or, = 26.1
0 CONFIGURATION

MODIFIED 1404 SHUTTLE ORBITER ( A = 55")
0

RESULTS COMPARISON OF PRESSURE DISTRI BUTIONS, SHOCK SHAPES, AND AERODYNAM IC COEFF IC I E M S

Figure 2 4 . - Investigation of real-gas effects on S h u t t l e o r b i t e r .

338

a = 25O X

0.8

0.6

w z
0
O00 orI

0.2

0 M = 10.3, y = 1.4 ,

I7 Mm = 26.1, EQ. A I R

1
0

I 200

I 400

I

600
Z, in.

I 800

1200 I

U

2400 I

1000

F i g u r e 25.- Windward symmetry p l a n e pressure distribution.

a = 25O
0.8
0 Mm = 10.3 , Y = 1.4
0 M ,

0.6
cN

= 26.1, EO. A I R

0.4

0.2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Z, in.
Figure 26.- Integrated normal-force coefficient.

339

7 = 1.4

Moo= 10.3
0.479 0.276

= 1.12 M' = 26.1 oc,
y

EO. A I R M 00 = 26.1
9.434 0.255 -0.014
0.501
0.049

0.430
0.252

-0.037
0.550 0.050

-0.012
0.495

.o. 049

Figure 27.-

Summary o f aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 140C S h u t t l e o r b i t e r , a = 2 5 0 .

Modified

FACILITY CALSPAN AEOC B b OA78 AEDC C OA171 NSVkC 3 C OA208 AEDC B c OAPOSi AEDC A NOV. 77 ADDB3& SEPT. i 8 A D O B

SOURCE

o OA113 c. OA77

S,v = 2690 ft

2

b,=b
6
SB

bREF= 936.68 in

BF

=o

=

---

LB = 1290 in

=b =O
R

a, deg
50
45
40

1.6 1.3

E-

--

P--[eo
0 O@

-0

1.1 1.1
.9

pz
rfi

n
Y

--

35

----------I@++-, 0 .02 -03
.01

-- ---

- 0 4 .OS .06 .07 .08

"d,

F i g u r e 28

.- Normal-force
M, and

v:.

c o e f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n with

340

I
i

e
01

SOURCE
0

FACILITY CALSPAN

A

OA113 OA77 OA78 bOAli1 0 OA208 0 OA209

AEDC B
AEDC C NSM'C 9 AEDC B AEDC A NOV. 77 ADDB38 SEPT. 78 A D DB39

---

adeg

* 2 c 9 0 ft 6 6 9 = 936.68 i n e BF b~~~ ij =ij = o LB = 1290 in SB R
~

sv;

2

0

A v

h -

c*

0.1

0
0.1
0

0. I 0
4

A

v

h

n

6

8

10

12 14 16 18 20
Mcv

0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06.07 .08

-

" ,

Figure 29.- Axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t variation with , and .; M 7

2 Sy\, = 2690 fl bREF= 936.68 i n 6e
LB = 1290 in
'SB

=

6BF = 0
=

*R

F i g u r e 30.- Pitching-moment coefficient variation w i t h , and M

v:.

34 1

-

0.08

v

6

-

12.35,D

TEST DEFLECTIONS
UNEGATIVL

P ITCHING-MOMENT COEFFICIENT, cm

cZtRO

OPOSITIVE

0, 16.3

0.M

p&s-~-+-&---40, -11.7
--0,
0

TEST oOA171 0 OA208 tOA78

-0.04
-0.12

- A D D B 39

-12.35 , 16.3

F i g u r e 31.- Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , C

mO . 65L'

0.04
0.02

-

BF 0' TO -11.7'

0 -

F i g u r e 32.-

ADDB values f o r hypersonic body f l a p effectiveness.

342

00

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

‘BF 0 0

0 0

0-0-0-

------0

- ---

5t
I
0

--I

FLIGHT N O M IN A L ADDB3’
I

5

I 10

I

I

15 M00

20

25

30

Figure 33.- Body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n € o r STS-1.

- INTERPOLATED
0
STS-1

WIND TUNNEL DATA

1
1.5
*

M =JS, Y = 1.4, vb, = 0.035

vm = 0.038

0

15

30
a

45

0

1 :
a

30

45

(a) Normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t .

F i g u r e 3 4 . - P o s t f l i g h t comparison of STS-1 aerodynamics w i t h interpolated wind t u n n e l d a t a .

343

\

*3
cA

1
[
15

0RlaNAL PAGE o s OF POOR QUALm
M =_13.5, y = 1.4,

V~=0.006

-INTERPOLATED
WIND TUNNEL DATA

H
0

STS-1

'3

M =_ 18, Y = 1.4, V & = 0.035

-.2

15

30
a

45

r
30 a
45

M = 20.3, y = 1.667, = 0.008

v :

(b) Axial-force coefficient.

- INTERPOLATED W I N D TUNNEL
0
DATA STS-1

.10

, = 18 , y = 1.4 , Vb, = 0.035 M

M = 20 , ,

0 15

30
[ I

a5

60

15

r = 1.667 , vL = 0.008
30
a

45

60

( c ) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 3 4 . - Continued.
344

CL 5
M =_13.5. Y 1.4,

-INTERPOLATED
W I N D TUNNtL DATA

0

STS-1

vb, = 0.006

M = 18, Y = 1.4,

v;

M = 20.3, Y = 1.667,

= 0.035
30 a

v;
1

= 0.008
I .

0

15

45

0

15
( I

30

1 45

(d) L i f t coefficient.

15 .

‘D1*’ .5

I ,/
vb, = 0.006
ul = 18.

M = 13.5. Y = 1.4,

-INTERPOLATED
WIND TUNNEL DATA

0

STS-1

1.5

r = 1.4, vb, = 0.035

vl

20.3. y = i.667,

V = 0.008 L

1.0

cD

.5

0

P 15
30
45
( I

0

15
a

30

45

( e ) Drag c o e f f i c i e n t .

F i g u r e 3 4 . - Continued.

345

ORIGINAL PAGE 1 9 OF POOR QUALlTY

-INTERPOLATED
0

W I N D TUNNEL DATA STS-1

M ~ 1 8 r. = 1.4,

hl = 20.3, y = 1.667. Vb, = 0.008

.7

15

30
a

45

15

30
a

45

(f) Lift-to-drag ratio.

Figure 34.

-

Concluded.

2.0 r ALT = 230000 M = 22 , a = 40'

e
9

-Y = 1.4 }HAL,S36 ---y = 1.18
1.0

OBLIQUE SHOCK 6 = 10' BF

00

Ll
0

I

I

I

I

I

I

.4

.5

.6

.7

z/ L

.8

.9

1.o

I

1.1

F i g u r e 35.- Comparison of flight windward centerline pressure distribution w i t h calculation.
346

EXPLANATION OF THE HYPERSONIC LONGITU3INAL

STABILITY PROBLEM

-

LESSONS LEARhE3-I;

B. J. G r i f f i t h and J. R. Eiaus Calspan F i e l d S e r v i c e s , Inc./AEDC D i v i s i o n Tullahoma, Tennessee

J . T. Best
U.

S. A i r F o r c e , A n a l y s i s and E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n

Arnold A i r F o r c e S t a t i o n , Tennessee

SUMMARY

I n v i s c i d and v i s c o u s CFD c o d e s have been a p p l i e d t o a m o d i f i e d Space S h u t t l e ' o r b i t e r geometry t o i n v e s t i g a t e d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e f l i g h t aerodynamic p r e d i c t i o n s and aerodynamic d a t a from h y p e r s o n i c r e e n t r y f l i g h t . Flow f i e l d s o l u t i o n s were obt a i n e d f o r wind t u n n e l c o n d i t i o n s and f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s t o assess Mach number, r e a l g a s , and v i s c o u s e f f e c t s on t h e r e e n t r y aerodynamics of t h e o r b i t e r . Based on t h e CFD s t u d i e s , a methodology model h a s been developed t o 1) e x t r a p o l a t e wind t u n n e l d a t a t o f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s and 2 ) c a l c u l a t e a DCM f o r use w i t h t h e Aerodynamic Design Data Book. Comparisons a r e made w i t h s e l e c t e d f l i g h t d a t a . R e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and pre-STS-1 p r e d i c t i o n s of h y p e r s o n i c p i t c h i n g moment are p r i m a r i l y due t o Mach number a n d r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s .

INTRODUCTION

The f l i g h t t e s t program f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e ( f i g u r e 1) h a s been remarkably s u c c e s s f u l o v e r a l l ; however, aerodynamic a n o m a l i e s have a r i s e n t h a t r e q u i r e f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F o r example, r e s u l t s from t h e Space S h u t t l e f l i g h t s have shown a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n of h y p e r s o n i c p i t c h i n g moment and v a l u e s i n f e r r e d from f l i g h t d a t a (refs. 1 , Z ) . These d i f f e r e n c e s have r e s u l t e d i n body f l a p deflections (required to m a i n t a i n t r i m ) more t h a n t w i c e t h o s e p r e d i c t e d p r i o r t o STS-1.
T h e p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e o r b i t e r aerodynamics were based p r i m a r i l y on ground t e s t d a t a o b t a i n e d i n a v e r y e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t program. In an e f f o r t t o r e s o l v e t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y a d d r e s s e s , t h r o u g h t h e u s e of Computat i o n a l F l u i d Dynamics (CFD) c o d e s , some of t h e fundamental f l o w modeling n e c e s s a r y t o e x t r a p o l a t e ground t e s t d a t a t o h y p e r s o n i c f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . In particular , t h i s p a p e r examines t h e h i g h Mach number, r e a l - g a s , and v i s c o u s e f f e c t s on t h e o r b i t e r aerodynamics.

*:the work r e p o r t e d h e r e i n was performed by t h e Arnold E n g i n e e r i n g Development C e n t e r (AEDC), A i r F o r c e Systems Command. T h i s s t u d y w a s sponsored by t h e U.S. A i r F o r c e Space D i v i s i o n , NASA/JSC and AEDC. Work and a n a l y s i s were done by p e r s o n n e l o f Calspan F i e l d S e r v i c e s , Inc. /AEDC Division, o p e r a t i n g c o n t r a c t o r f o r Aerospace Flight Dynamics T e s t i n g , and t h e A i r F o r c e ' s A n a l y s i s and E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n (DOFU).

347

The e f f e c t s of Mach number w e r e a s s e s s e d by p a r a m e t r i c a l l y v a r y i n g f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number and a n g l e of a t t a c k i n a series o f i n v i s c i d , p e r f e c t - g a s c o m p u t a t i o n s c a r r i e d o u t on a m o d i f i e d o r b i t e r geometry. Real-gas e f f e c t s were e x p l o r e d by making c a l c u l a t i o n s at s p e c i f i c points of t h e reentry t r a j e c t o r y using equilibrium a i r thermodynamics and comparing w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r f e c t - g a s c o m p u t a t i o n s . V i s cous e f f e c t s on t h e o r b i t e r aerodynamics were d e t e r m i n e d by a n a n a l y s i s of wind t u n n e l h e a t t r a n s f e r and v i s c o u s d r a g d a t a supplemented by s e v e r a l v i s c o u s c o m p u t a t i o n s f o r a m o d i f i e d S h u t t l e geometry a t low a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The e f f e c t s d i s c u s s e d above have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a methodology model t o ( 1 ) e x t r a p o l a t e h i g h Mach number wind t u n n e l d a t a from AEDC Hypersonic Wind Tunnel ( B ) t o f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s and ( 2 ) c a l c u l a t e a DCM t h a t can b e used w i t h t h e Aerodynamic Dcs i g n Data Book (ADDB). Comparisons a r e made w i t h s e l e c t e d f l i g h t d a t a . P r e c i s i o n problems w i t h t h e f l i g h t d a t a , ADDB v a l u e s , and CFD r e s u l t s are a d d r e s s e d .

NOMENCLATURE
2

A

r e f e r e n c e a r e a , 250 m axial-force

(2690 f t )

2

c o e f f i c i e n t , FA/Aqm

cf

skin friction coefficient

CM

pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , Mo/FAq, normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t , FN/Aq,

CG

c e n t e r of g r a v i t y p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t (p

C

P

-

p,)q,

cm
C

Chapman-Rubesin c o n s t a n t , (pWTm)/pmTw) r e f e r e n c e chord l e n g t h , 12.06 m ( 4 7 4 . 8 i n . ) moment t o b e added t o Aerodynamic Design Data Book (ADDB) ( r e f . 3 ) f o r f l i g h t agreement

D C?I

FA
FN

a x i a l shear drag normal f o r c e ernpirical constant Reynolds analogy f a c t o r l i f t f o r c e o r body l e n g t h lift-to-drag ratio

K
Kr
L.

M

Nach number

348

MO

t o t a l moment about 2 , pressure pushover-pull-up

=

9 4 . 0 cm (37.0 i n . ) and noted f l i g h t a x i a i CG

P

POPU
PR

manuver

Prandtl number
h e a t -t r a n s f e r r a t e dynamic p r e s s u r e free-stream Reynolds numbers p e r meter

6
q

Re
Re
S
mYL

f r e e - s t r e a m Reynolds number based on model l e n g t h area S t a n t o n number temper a t u r e velocity viscous parameter,

St
T

v

MmK/ds

' S T
XYYYZ

s t a t i o n a t which b l u n t body code i s used t o s t a r t primary code Cartesian coordinates a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e from CG t o lower s u r f a c e a n g l e of a t t a c k difference deflection angle
specific heat r a t i o

Z a

A 6
Y

P

density circumferential angle

Q

Subscripts :
AEDC

Arnold E n g i n e e r i n g Development Center b a s i c body (tie = €ibf = 0) body f l a p computational f l u i d dynamics

BB bf

CFD

c.p.
e

center of p r e s s u r e
elevon
349

FLT
0

flight stagnation point viscous w e t t e d area wa 1 1 free-stream conditions

V
WET

w
02

Acronyms :
ADDB
AIR3D

Aerodynamic Design Data Book ( r e f . 3)

Navier S t o k e s B l u n t Body Code
C o m p u t a t i o n a l F l u i d Dynamics B l u n t Body E u l e r Code ( r e f . 5)

( r e f . 4)

CFD
CM3DT
PNS

P a r a b o l i z e d N a v i e r Stokes Code ( r e f . 6 )

QUICK

Geometry Modeling Code ( r e f . 7 ) I n v i s c i d Space Marching Code ( r e f . 8 )

STEIN

I N V I S C I D COMPUTATIONS

Approach Advanced CFD c o d e s CM3DT ( r e f . 5) and STEIN ( r e f . 8) have b-een a p p l i e d t o a m o d i f i e d o r b i t e r geometry t o o b t a i n d e t a i l e d i n v i s c i d f l o w f i e l d s o l u t i o n s f o r b o t h wind t u n n e l t e s t c o n d i t i o n s and h y p e r s o n i c f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . F i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e geometry f o r which t h e c o m p u t a t i o n s were performed. The m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l model geometry and t h e a c t u a l o r b i t e r geometry shown i n f i g u r e 1 are: (1) t h e wing sweep back a n g l e hzs been i n c r e a s e d from 45' t o 5 5 O , ( 2 ) t h e wing t h i c k n e s s of t h e model is a b o u t twice t h a t of t h e o r b i t e r , ( 3 ) t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l geometry i s s q u a r e d o f f a t t h e body f l a p h i n g e l i n e , a n d ( 4 ) t h e r u d d e r and OMS pods are n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e model geometry. The p r o j e c t e d planform area o f t h e computat i o n a l geometry i s a b o u t two p e r c e n t less t h a n t h e o r b i t e r p r o j e c t e d area, and t h e c e n t r o i d o f t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l p r o j e c t e d area i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y two p e r c e n t of model l e n g t h f u r t h e r a f t t h a n f o r t h e o r b i t e r . A l l c o e f f i c i e n t s , however, are b a s e d on t h e a c t u a l o r b i t e r reference values €or consistency.

CM3DT and STEIN a r e b o t h i n t e r f a c e d w i t h t h e QUICK ( r e f . 7 ) geometry r o u t i n e s which s p e c i f y t h e body shape and compute g e o m e t r i c a l p a r a m e t e r s on t h e s u r f a c e . Both c o d e s employ conformal mapping t o t r a n s f o r m p h y s i c a l s p a c e between t h e body and t h e bow s h o c k i n t o a s i m p l e c o m p u t a t i o n a l domain.
The time-dependent E u l e r s o l v e r CM3DT was used t o o b t a i n f l o w f i e l d s o l u t i o n s i n t h e t r a n s o n i c f o r e b o d y r e g i o n of t h e o r b i t e r . These s o l u t i o n s p r o v i d e i n i t i a l
350

c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e i n v i s c i d space marching code STEIN, which w a s used t o compute t h e flow f i e l d f o r t h e s u p e r s o n i c a f t e r b o d y p o r t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e . C a l c u l a t e d s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s were i n t e g r a t e d over t h e body t o o b t a i n aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments a c t i n g on t h e v e h i c l e . Both CM3DT and STEIN can b e used e i t h e r f o r p e r f e c t - g a s o r e q u i l i b r i u m - a i r c a l c u l a t i o n s . Tabulated thermodynamic p r o p e r t i e s , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with t a b l e look-up r o u t i n e s , are used f o r e q u i l i b r i u m a i r computations.

Comparison w i t h Wind Tunnel Data
To e s t a b l i s h c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e CFD r e s u l t s and t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t of geometrical d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e aerodynamic parameters, i n i t i a l computations w i t h CD3DT and STEIN w e r e made t o compare w i t h wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s . The s p e c i f i c : wind t u n n e l d a t a used i n t h i s comparison are from AEDC Tunnel B ( r e f s . 9, 10) s i n c e t h e s e d a t a are some of t h e most r e l i a b l e h i g h Mach number . d a t a a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e orbiter

.

F i g u r e 3 shows a comparison of computed and measured p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s a l o n g t h e windward c e n t e r l i n e a t Mm = 8 f o r two a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The computed p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n , a l t h o u g h s l i g h t l y o v e r p r e d i c t i n g t h e p r e s s u r e s i n t h e midbody r e g i o n , g e n e r a l l y a g r e e s v e r y w e l l i n d i s t r i b u t i o n and l e v e l w i t h t h e experimental v a l u e s .

I

*

A comparison of computed and experimental normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t s i s shown i n f i g u r e 4 . The r e f e r e n c e area used t o nondimensionalize t h e c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e s i s t h e a c t u a l o r b i t e r wing area, A = 250 m2 (2690 f t 2 ) . The agreement shown, as good as i t i s , would b e even b e t t e r had t h e r e f e r e n c e a r e a been reduced by two p e r c e n t t o account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o j e c t e d planform a r e a .
P r e d i c t i n g p i t c h i n g moment i s a s e v e r e t e s t of any CFD code. FiE;ure 5 shows a comparison of computed pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h experimental v a l u e s f o r t h e b a s i c o r b i t e r geometry. The maximum d e v i a t i o n , which occurs a t an angle of a t t a c k of about 30°, corresponds t o a d i f f e r e n c e i n c e n t e r of p r e s s u r e of only 0.3 p e r c e n t of t h e 'body l e n g t h , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e computational model is a r e a l i s t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a c t u a l Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r . The r e s u l t s of t h e above comparisons g i v e confidence i n t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e computational code t o t h e complex model o r b i t e r geometry. These CFD codes and a s e t of high-quality Mach 8 t u n n e l d a t a are t h e t o o l s used t o p r e d i c t f l i g h t aerodynamics i n t h i s paper.

Mach Number and Real-Gas E f f e c t s
E f f e c t s on t h e o r b i t e r aerodynamics a t t r i b u t a b l e t o hypersonic Mach number and e q u i l i b r i u m - a i r thermodynamics w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d by c a r r y i n g o u t a series of CFD s o l u t i o n s u s i n g CM3DT and STEIN f o r t h e m a t r i x of c o n d i t i o n s shown i n t a b l e I . A s i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s t a b l e , d i f f i c u l t i e s w e r e encountered i n o b t a i n i n g s o l u t i o n s a t t h e h i g h e s t a n g l e of a t t a c k , a = 40°. Nonetheless, i t is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e r e s u l t s i s such t h a t v a l u e s a t h i g h a n g l e s of a t t a c k can be e x t r a p o l a t e d witho u t g r e a t r i s k . More d e t a i l on t h e computational r e s u l t s i s given i n r e f . 10.

The e f f e c t of r e a l - g a s thermodynamics on t h e s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6 by comparing t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r a p e r f e c t g a s a t
35 1

= 23 w i t h an e q u i l i b r i u m - a i r c a l c u l a t i o n f o r c o n d i t i o n s a t a p o i n t on t h e r e e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y corresponding approximately t o t h e same Mach number. Note t h a t t h e realg a s p r e s s u r e s are s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than t h e p e r f e c t - g a s p r e s s u r e s i n t h e forebody r e g i o n and somewhat lower on t h e afterbody. These d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t an e f f e c t of r e a l gas w i l l be t o produce a more p o s i t i v e (nose-up) p i t c h i n g moment.

Mm

Real-gas e f f e c t s on t h e normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t of t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r model are i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 7. The Mach numbers f o r t h e r e a l - g a s computations i n t h i s f i g u r e correspond t o p o i n t s of t h e r e e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y given i n t a b l e I. F i g u r e 7 ind i c a t e s a s l i g h t d e c r e a s e i n normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s caused by the lower p r e s s u r e s on t h e a f t p a r t of t h e o r b i t e r . Real-gas e f f e c t s on p i t c h i n g moment are i l l u s t r a t e d f o r t h e h i g h - v e l o c i t y , higha l t i t u d e case i n f i g u r e 8 by comparing t h e r e s u l t s f o r p e r f e c t - g a s computations w i t h t h o s e f o r e q u i l i b r i u m - a i r thermodynamics. This f i g u r e reveals t h a t t h e r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s d r i v e CH more p o s i t i v e w i t h t h e e f f e c t s being most s i g n i f i c a n t a t h i g h e r a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The e q u i v a l e n t e f f e c t s of Mach number and r e a l gas on center-ofp r e s s u r e l o c a t i o n are shown i n f i g u r e 9 .

VISCOUS ANAJAYSIS
T h e a n a l y s i s of t h e v i s c o u s e f f e c t s on t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r aerodynamics w a s pursued u s i n g two complementary approaches: (1) fully v i s c o u s computations f o r a

modified o r b i t e r geometry using a parabolized Navier Stokes computer code and ( 2 ) t h e development of simple a n a l y t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s f o r t h e v i s c o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o CA and CM from t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and experimental d a t a .

PNS Computations The main emphasis of t h i s p a r t of t h e program w a s to o b t a i n laminar v i s c o u s flow f i e l d s o l u t i o n s f o r a model o r b i t e r geometry employing an e x i s t i n g p a r a b o l i z e d Navier Stokes computer code (PNS) o r i g i n a l l y developed by S c h i f f and S t e g e r ( r e f . 6 ) . F u r t h e r developmental work on t h i s code i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g sponsored by AFWAL/FIMG. Some o f t h e more r e c e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e described i n r e f . 11. I t should be noted t h a t i t i s a p e r f e c t - g a s code a t t h e p r e s e n t time.

The model geometry f o r which t h e s e computations were c a r r i e d o u t i s similar to t h e i n v i s c i d computational geometry shown i n f i g u r e 2 and d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d I N V I S C I D COMPUTATIONS. The p r i n c i p a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two computat i o n a l models i s t h a t t h e upper s u r f a c e of t h e v i s c o u s geometry i s approximated by e l l i p s e s as i n d i c a t e d by t h e dashed l i n e i n f i g u r e 2 .
The PNS code u s e s a s t a r t i n g s o l u t i o n on an i n i t i a l d a t a s u r f a c e where t h e i n v i s c i d flow i s s u p e r s o n i c . The embedded subsonic r e g i o n over t h e nose r e q u i r e s a three-dimensional time-dependent Navier-Stokes code f o r t h e blunt-body nose s o l u t i o n s . The f u l l three-dimensional time-dependent t h i n - l a y e r Navier-Stokes code (AIK3D) developed by K u t l e r e t a l . ( r e f . 4 ) i s used h e r e t o o b t a i n t h e blunt-nose s o l u t i o n and i n i t i a l d a t a f o r s t a r t i n g t h e p a r a b o l i z e d Navier-Stokes code. Obtaining s o l u t i o n s on t h e S h u t t l e - l i k e geometry was n o t an easy t a s k . A number of m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e code, d e s c r i b e d i n more d e t a i l i n r e f . 12, were r e q u i r e d t o march t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e end of t h e body. I n p a r t i c u l a r , s t a b i l i t y problems were encountered t o about x/L = 0 . 6 where t h e wing f l a r e occurs. A t t h i s p o i n t , i t w a s
352

found n e c e s s a r y t o d e l e t e t h e l e e s i d e from t h e f l o w f i e l d , r e p l a c i n g t h e l e e p i t c h The p l a n , ? symmetry c o n d i t i o n by a s u p e r s o n i c o u t f l o w c o n d i t i o n j u s t above t h e wing. s o l u t i o n on t h e windward s i d e c o u l d t h e n be c o n t i n u e d t o t h e end of t h e body f o r l o w a n g l e s of a t t a c k (<20°). Numerical s o l u t i o n s of t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l p a r a b o l i z e d Navier-Stokes e q u a t i o n s were o b t a i n e d f o r t h e S h u t t l e - l i k e geometry a t Mach 2 3 o v e r a p r e s s u r e a l t i t u d e r a n g e of 5 2 . 4 and 86 km (172,000 and 282,000 f t ) a t a n a n g l e of a t t a c k of 20" i n o r d e r t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e c h n i q u e . The S h u t t l e a n g l e of a t t a c k a t Mach 2 3 d u r i n g f l i g h t i s a b o u t 40°, a more d i f f i c u l t c o m p u t a t i o n . A n u m e r i c a l s o l u t i o n of a n AEDC Tunnel B test c o n d i t i o n a t Mach 8 and 25' a n g l e of a t t a c k was a l s o o b t a i n e d , Free-stream c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e t e s t cases are g i v e n i n t a b l e 11. F i g u r e 10 shows a comparison of computed h e a t t r a n s f e r d i s t r i b u t i . o n a l o n g t h e windward c e n t e r l i n e w i t h d a t a from AEDC Tunnel B ( r e f . 1 2 ) . The Plus code s l i g h t l y o v e r p r e d i c t s t h e d a t a , b u t t h e agreement i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e good. F i g u r e 11 p r e s e n t s t h e s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e a l o n g t h e body s u r f a c e a t windward (Q = 0) and l e e w a r d (Q = 180°) p l a n e s f o r two d i f f e r e n t Reynolds numbers. The p r e s s u r e on t h e lee s i d e a f t e r x/L = 0.2 i s v e r y l o w and s h o u l d have l i t t l e e f f e c t on t I i E 0 aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s . The PNS r e s u l t s approach t h e i n v i s c i d S T E I h r e s u l t s as tht. f r e e - s t r e a m Reynolds number i s i n c r e a s e d . F i g u r e s 12 and 13 p r e s e n t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l pitching-moment and a x i a l - f o r c e cont r i b u t i o n s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o d i r e c t v i s c o u s s-e a r and induced p r e s s u r e e f f e c t s as a h € u n c r i o n of v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n p a r a m e t e r , Vm. The v i s c o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o CM o r CA i s t h e v a l u e a t V, minus t h e v a l u e a t = 0. The s h e a r f o r c e on t h e wind s u r f a c e c a u s e s a nose-down p i t c h i n g moment as shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 , d e c r e a s i n g t h e amount of eleviin o r body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o t r i m t h e v e h i c l e .

va

Semi-Theoretical Analysis
It i s well-known t h a t f o r f u l l y a t t a c h e d flow, t h e l o c a l s k i n f r i c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t and t h e S t a n t o n number can b e r e l a t e d t h r o u g h Reynolds a n a l o g y :
Cfm = K ,

St,,

(1)

where K r is t h e Reynolds a n a l o g y f a c t o r (Kr = 2 Pr1l2 for l a m i n a r flow o v e r a flat I t i s assumed t h a t a t h i g h a n g l e s o f a t t a c k , a l l of t h e v i s c o u s f o r c e s a c t plate). It i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t h e a v e r a g e s k i n on t h e lower s u r f a c e of t h e v e h i c l e . f r i c t i o n on t h e windward s u r f a c e i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o a n a v e r a g e S t a n t o n number. Then, t h e t o t a l viscous a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t can be expressed a s

hcA

AVG

I n t r o d u c i n g t h e v i s c o u s parameter

353

i n t o eq. (2) y i e l d s

ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY

Heat t r a n s f e r d a t a ( T e s t OH-11) o b t a i n e d on t h e o r b i t e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n AEDC Hyperv e l o c i t y Wind Tunnel (F) ( r e f . 13) were used t o d e f i n e t h e v a r i a t i o n o f , (St,)AVG(Rem,L) a s a f u n c t i o n of M and a ( s e e f i g u r e 1 4 ) :

Using t h i s r e l a t i o n i n e q . ( 3 ) g i v e s

T h e o r e t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s on a n e a r l i e r Space S h u t t l e d e s i g n u s i n g a q u a s i - t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l boundary l a y e r code developed by Adams and M a r t i n d a l e ( r e f . 14) i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Reynolds a n a l o g y f a c t o r , K,, for t h e windward s i d e depends on a n g l e o f attack (see figure 15):

K,(a)
S u b s t i t u t i n g i n eq.

=

K(cos a)

1.75

(6)

(5) g i v e s
ACA = Vm s i n a ( c o s a)

-

1.75

WT ' E
\%A

(7)

Evaluating t h e constants
C m = 0.932

(tunnel conditions)

K = 1.99,
yields
ACA = 3 . 6 3

-= A

1.695

v,

s i n a ( c o s a)

1.75

R e c a l l i n g t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e v i s c o u s d r a g a c t s o n l y o v e r t h e windward s u r f a c e of t h e o r b i t e r , t h e above e x p r e s s i o n can also b e used t o o b t a i n an a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o t h e v i s c o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o p i t c h i n g moment. R e f e r r i n g t o f i g u r e 1 6 shows t h a t m u l t i p l y i n g eq. (8) by a n e f f e c t i v e l e v e r a r m , t h e d i s t a n c e from t h e assumed c e n t e r of g r a v i t y t o t h e windward s u r f a c e , a p p r o p r i a t e l y n o n d i m e n s i o n a l i z e d , g i v e s an app r o x i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n f o r ACM. T a k i n g Az t o b e 254 c m g i v e s
= -0.765

v,

s i n a ( c o s a) I . 75

AcM

(9)

354

:Figure 1 7 shows a comparison of t h e v i s c o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o CA and CM a s obt a i n e d from eqs. (8) and (9) w i t h corresponding PNS s o l u t i o n s and experimental d a t a ( r e f . 15) from AEDC Tunnel F a t 20' a n g l e of a t t a c k . The v a r i o u s experimental p o i n t s during a given Tunnel F run a r e d a t a taken a t d i f f e r e n t test t i m e s d u r i n g t h e run where t h e Reynolds number and Mach number are changing because of a dec.reasing s t a g I n v i s c i d v a l u e s of n a t i o n p r e s s u r e and g e n e r a l l y a changing s t a g n a t i o n temperature. 0.0520 (CA) and +0.0010 (CM) w e r e s u b t r a c t e d from t h e t a b u l a t e d experimental d a t a i n r e f . 15 t o o b t a i n ACA and ACM. The e m p i r i c a l e q u a t i o n s (8) and (9) give a very good r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e v i s c o u s i n f l u e n c e p r e d i c t e d by t h e PNS s o l u t i o n and d i s p l a y e d by t h e experimental d a t a a t t h i s a n g l e of a t t a c k . EH D L G DEVELOPMENT OF M T O O O Y MODEL

Ln o r d e r t o make comparisons w i t h f l i g h t r e s u l t s , aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r under f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s were obtained by e x t r a p o l a t i n g wind , tunne.1 d a t a f o r M = 8. The methodology t h a t w a s employed i n t h i s e x t r a p o l a t i o n i s i l l u s . i r a t e d i n f i g u r e 18. The Mach number and r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s were obtained from t h e computational r e s u l t s p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . The v i s c o u s e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 18 w e r e derived from a combination of computational r e s u l t s using a parab o l i z e d Navier-Stokes code and a s e m i - t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s a s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . The summation of t h e Mach number, real-gas and v i s c o u s e f f e c t s i s e q u a l t o t h e AEDC DCM d e s c r i b e d i n t h e following s e c t i o n .
For t h e comparisons made i n t h i s paper, t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e d e f l e c t i o n s w a s assumed t o be as p r e d i c t e d b e f o r e f l i g h t . In o t h e r words, i t w a s assumed t h a t t h e tunnel-derived c o n t r o l s u r f a c e e f f e c t i v e n e s s w a s n o t f u r t h e r degraded by v i s c o u s e f f e c t s nor s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed by Mach number and r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s . This assumption appears t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h e comparisons made h e r e , b u t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of Mach number, r e a l - g a s , and v i s c o u s e f f e c t s of t h e e l e v o n s and body f l a p i s needed. f An example of t h e buildup of f l i g h t C ~ I o r t h e b a s i c body i s given i n f i g u r e 1 9 f o r a h i g h - a l t i t u d e p o i n t on t h e f l i g h t t r a j e c t o r y . This p l o t d e p i c t s t h e Mach 8 Tunnel B d a t a and t h e Mach number, r e a l - g a s , and v i s c o u s e f f e c t s d e r i v e d from CFD compu1:ations t o a r r i v e a t t h e b a s i c body f o r f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . Also shown i n t h i s
f i g u r e are the p r e - f l i g h t predictions
( r e f . 3)

of CM f o r s i m i l a r conditions.

Note

t h a t t h e b a s i c body v a l u e s of CM based on t h e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s are 0.02 o r more g r e a t e r than t h e p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s . F i g u r e 20 shows a comparison of t h e r e s u l t s of t h e methodology model w i t h t h e f i r s t body f l a p sweep of STS-2, where t h e body f l a p and elevons were d e f l e c t e d simult a n e o u s l y t o m a i n t a i n t h e o r b i t e r i n trim. Displayed i n f i g u r e 20 i s t h e elevon def l e c t i o n a s a f u n c t i o n of body f l a p a n g l e o b t a i n e d by u s i n g t h e M, = 8 basic-body pitching-moment d a t a . This dashed curve i s v e r y c l o s e t o t h e p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , f i g u r e 20 shows t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p betwe,en body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n and elevon d e f l e c t i o n d u r i n g t h i s sweep as computed by t h e p r e s e n t methodology and t h e c o r r e sponding f l i g h t d a t a . The agreement is e x c e l l e n t .

355

DCM COMPUTATIONS

Computations a t v a r i o u s Mach numbers, a l t i t u d e s , and a n g l e s o f a t t a c k u s i n g t h e methodology model were made. A s e r i e s o f t h e s e c o m p u t a t i o n s i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 2 1 t h r o u g h 26. The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d as a (DCMICFD t o b e added t o t h e Mach 8 ADDB b a s i c body p i t c h i n g moment. The (DCM),, d e c r e a s e s as t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k of t h e o r b i t e r d e c r e a s e s . However, t h e e f f e c t i v e c e n t e r - o f - p r e s s u r e s h i f t i n c r e a s e s a t t h e l o w e r a n g l e s o f a t t a c k a s n o t e d i n f i g u r e 9. The (DCM)Cm a l s o d e c r e a s e s s l i g h t l y as a l t i t u d e i n c r e a s e s b e c a u s e of t h e nose-down moment caused by t h e i n c r e a s i n g v i s c o u s f o r c e s on t h e l o w e r s u r f a c e . A d d i t i o n a l PNS s o l u t i o n s a r e needed a t h i g h e r a n g l e s of a t t a c k i n o r d e r t o improve o r v a l i d a t e t h e methodology model.

PROBLEM AREAS
The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s a t t e m p t t o g i v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l stab i l i t y DCM problem t h a t c a u s e d t h e a d d i t i o n a l body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n f o r t r i m . T h i s s e c t i o n b r i e f l y o u t l i n e s some o f t h e problem a r e a s e n c o u n t e r e d i n f l i g h t d a t a reduct i o n , t u n n e l and ADDB d a t a , and t h e CFD c o m p u t a t i o n s . Comparison of DCM With Reduced STS-3 and STS-4 DC& LFLT

CFD

F i g u r e 27 p r e s e n t s t h e d e f i n i t i o n of DCM a s d e r i v e d from f l i g h t and CFD computat i o n s . A comparison of t h e s e DCM's € o r f l i g h t s STS-3 and STA-4 i s g i v e n i n f i g u r e 28. The D C M ~ F D u n d e r p r e d i c t s t h e f l i g h t DCM between 0.0030 and 0.0060 above 5 6 . 4 km (185,000 f t ) . S i m i l a r agreement i s n o t e d when d a t a from STS-1 and STS-2 a r e a n a l y z e d .

F l i g h t /ADDB Problems An a c c u r a t e DCM from f l i g h t depends upon b o t h good f l i g h t d a t a and a c c u r a t e m a s s p r o p e r t i e s , p l u s a d a t a b a s e t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e body f l a p and e l e v o n as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number, a l t i t u d e , and a t t i t u d e . The i n c r e m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and computer DCM are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 2 9 a s a f u n c t i o n of a l t i t u d e . The f i g u r e a l s o shows t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e f l i g h t CG. A 5.08-cm (2-inch) forward e r r o r i n t h e n o t e d c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y of STS-3 w i l l b r i n g t h e f l i g h t and computed DCM i n t o agreement above 55 km (1.80,OOO f t ) . Another problem t h a t n e e d s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s t h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e body f l a p and e l e v o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i t h t h e f l i g h t parameters. F i g u r e 30 shows t h e shock shape a l o n g t h e wind s u r f a c e f o r a Mach 8 i d e a l - g a s and a Mach 23 e q u i l i b r i u m - a i r s o l u t i o n . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e body f l a p s h o u l d be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e s h o c k s h a p e s . F i g u r e 30b p r e s e n t s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between f l i g h t (STS-1 t o 4 ) and t h e DCMCFD as a f u n c t i o n of body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n f o r a n a l t i t u d e of 7 3 . 1 km (240,000 f t ) . The DCM s h o u l d n o t b e a f u n c t i o n o f body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n ; however, a d e f i n i t e t r e n d i s shown, i n d i c a t i n g a p o s s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e ADDB h i g h Mach number, body f l a p e f f e c t i v e n e s s . However, a 2.54-cm ( l - i n c h ) e r r o r
356

0

i n CG f o r any of t h e f l i g h t s would a l t e r t h e t r e n d . Figure 31 shows t h e v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e s from t h e PNS s o l u t i o n s e n t e r i n g t h e body f l a p on t h e wind p l a n e of symmetry f o r s e v e r a l a l t i t u d e s a t Mach 2 3 and 20" a n g l e of a t t a c k . The p r o j e c t i o n s of t h e body f l a p i n t o t h e flowstream f o r 5 " and 8' d e f l e c t i o n s are a l s o given i n t h i s f i g u r e . The r e s u l t s c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e v i s c o u s i n f l u e n c e on t h e body f l a p e f f e c t i v e n e s s a t 20" a n g l e of a t t a c k should b e considered.
Armospheric unknowns a r e always p r e s e n t i n f l i g h t d a t a t o some degree. F i g u r e 32 g i v e s a comparison of t h e f l i g h t normal f o r c e (CN) and t h e computed normal f o r c e . The c a l c u l a t i o n of CN should be t h e most a c c u r a t e of a l l t h e aerodynamic parameters s i n c e CN does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y vary w i t h Reynolds number, and t h e body f l a p and elevon c o n t r i b u t i o n s are not l a r g e . Considerable v a r i a t i o n , however, i s noted between t h e v a r i o u s f l i g h t s . T h i s v a r i a t i o n i s most l i k e l y due t o i n a c c u r a c i e s i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l o c a l atmospheric d e n s i t y .
A summary of t h e v a r i o u s problem areas is given i n f i g u r e 33. should be considered i n any f l i g h t a n a l y s i s .

Each of t h e s e

CFD and Empirical Computations

T h e a b i l i t y t o make C D c a l c u l a t i o n s on f l i g h t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s h a s advanced a t F a r a p i d pace i n t h e l a s t few y e a r s . Problems, however, s t i l l e x i s t i n computing t h e f h w over complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n s suc5 as t h e Space S h u t t l e . The v a l i d a t i o n of computed real-gas e f f e c t s i n ground test f a c i l i t i e s i s very d i f f i c u l t . Comp u t i n g t h e flow over t h e e x a c t Space S h u t t l e geometry i s n o t y e t p o s s i b l e . The numerics of t h e code can i n f l u e n c e t h e answer i n some s i t u a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , s o l u t i o n s from s e v e r a l codes are r e q u i r e d ( s e e f i g u r e 3 4 ) t o develop a methodology -model, p l u s some e m p i r i c a l work. A few of t h e s e problems are d i s c u s s e d i n t h e following paragraphs.

One computational parameter t h a t could not be h e l d c o n s t a n t f o r a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s w a s Xsl:, t h e s t a t i o n a t which b l u n t body (CM3DT) s o l u t i o n w a s used t o s t a r t STEIN s o l u t i c m ( s e e f i g u r e 3 4 ) . The flow must be f u l l y s u p e r s o n i c a t t h i s p l a n e , and t h e windward-side s o n i c l i n e moves a f t a s a n g l e of a t t a c k i n c r e a s e s . Thus, w i t h changing a n g l e of a t t a c k , XST must be changed. There i s some a r b i t r a r i n e s s i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of XST j u s t as t h e r e i s some a r b i t r a r i n e s s i n the number o f mesh p o i n t s used. Gene r a l l y speaking, XST w a s chosen j u s t downstream of t h e windward-side s o n i c p o i n t t o t a k e maximum advantage of t h e more e f f i c i e n t STEIN computation. The t a b l e i n f i g u r e 34 shows t h e e f f e c t of XST changes on t h e computed CM a t a = 30°. More i m p o r t a n t l y , n o t e t h a t t h e e f f e c t on ACM is less t h a n 0.0001. Based on a series of such computat i o n s t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n ACM f o r Mach number and r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s i s e s t i m a t e d t o be no g r e a t e r t h a n +0.0008.
A comparison of t h e basic-body a x i a l f o r c e between f l i g h t and t h e CFD c a l c u l a I n o r d e r t o minimize t i o n s i s given i n f i g u r e 35 f o r STS-3 and f i g u r e 36 f o r STS-4. t h e i n f l u e n c e of unknown atmospheric and c o n t r o l v a r i a t i o n s , t h e following procedure was used:

e

S e v e r a l conclusions can be drawn from a n a n a l y s i s of f i g u r e s 35 and 36. These are: (1) t h e poor agreement between t h e f l i g h t CN and computed CN i n d i c a t e s t h a t a problem

357

w i t h t h e STS-4 atmosphere may e x i s t above 60 km (200,000 f t ) , (2) t h e b a s i c body f l i g h t CA (eq. (10)) between STS-3 and STS-4 i s i n e x c e l l e n t agreement, and (3) AEDC modeling of t h e a x i a l f o r c e above 64 k (210,000 f t ) does n o t match t h e f l i g h t m d a t a . A d d i t i o n a l PNS s o l u t i o n s a t h i g h e r a n g l e s of a t t a c k are needed a s an a i d i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e h i g h e r a l t i t u d e disagreement. The p r e d i c t i o n from t h e ADDB i s shown i n f i g u r e 35 f o r r e f e r e n c e .
The L I D r a t i o f o r STS-3 i s presented i n f i g u r e 37. The AEDC methodology model i s i n e x c e l l e n t agreement w i t h t h e f l i g h t d a t a . Above 64 k (210,000 f t ) t h e f l i g h t m L / D i s about one p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n t h e AEDC computed v a l u e . The disagreement between t h e f l i g h t CA and computed CA i n t h i s r e g i o n i s t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e disagreement. F i n a l l y , f i g u r e 38 summarizes t h e major problem areas i n t h e CFD computations. It should be noted t h a t t h e term CFD i n t h i s paper i n c l u d e s t h e semi-empirical work on t h e s h e a r drag as p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s e c t i o n on v i s c o u s a n a l y s i s .

LESSONS LEARNED

Advanced CFD codes have been a p p l i e d t o a modified Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r geome t r y t o o b t a i n i n v i s c i d and v i s c o u s flow f i e l d s o l u t i o n s for both wind t u n n e l and hypersonic f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . Based on t h e CFD s t u d i e s , a methodology model h a s been developed t o e x t r a p o l a t e wind t u n n e l d a t a t o f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s and t o c a l c u l a t e t h e DCM t h a t should b e used w i t h t h e ADDB f o r b e t t e r f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d t o t h e following lessons l e a r n e d :

1.

Wind t u n n e l d a t a can be used w i t h t h e s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t f o r improved f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s .

CFD computations

2.

Real-gas and high Mach number e f f e c t s are important f o r most high Mach number r e e n t r y v e h i c l e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e Space S h u t t l e .

REFERENCES

1. Young, J. C . ; P e r e z , L. F.; Romere, P. 0.; J a n i p e , D. B.: Space S h u t t l e Entry Aerodynamic Comparisons of F l i g h t 1 w i t h P r e f l i g h t P r e d i c t i o n s . A I M 81-2476, Nov. 1981.

2.

Underwood, J. PI.; and Cooke, D. R.: A P r e l i m i n a r y C o r r e l a t i o n of t h e O r b i t e r S t a b i l i t y and Control Aerodynamics from t h e F i r s t Two Space S h u t t l e F l i g h t s (STS-1 C 2) w i t h P r e f l i g h t P r e d i c t i o n s . AIAA-81-0564, A I M 1 2 t h Aerodynamic T e s t i n g Conference, Mar. 1982. R u s s e l l , W. R . , ed.: Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Volume 1, O r b i t e r Vehicle. Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , SD72-SD-O0601L, Oct. 1978. K u t l e r , P . ; P e d e l t y , J. A . ; and Pulliam, T. H.: Hypersonic Flow over ThreeDimensional Ablated N o s e t i p s Using an Unsteady I m p l i c i t Numerical Procedure. A I M Paper 80-0063, Jan. 1980.
H a l l , D. N . : I n v i s c i d Aerodynamic P r e d i c t i o n s for B a l l i s t i c Reentry Vehicles with Ablated Nosetips. SAI-79-506-VF, Science A p p l i c a t i o n s , I n c . , Feb. 1979.

3.

4.

5.

358

6.
7.
8.

S c h i f f , L . B . ; and S t e g e r , J. L.: Numerical S i m u l a t i o n of S t e a d y S u p e r s o n i c Viscous Flow. AIM P a p e r 79-0130, J a n . 1979. ‘ J a c h r i s , A. F . ; and Yeager, L. S . : Quick Geometry - P. Rapid Response Method f o r M a t h e m a t i c a l l y Modeling C o n f i g u r a t i o n Geometry. NASA SP-390, 1975. H a r c o n i , F. ; S a l a s , M.; and Yaeger, L.: Development o f a Computer Code f o r C a l c u l a t i n g t h e S t e a d y Super/Hypersonic I n v i s c i d Flow Around R e a l Configurat i o n s . NASA CR-2675, Apr. 1976. 1 4 a r t i n d a l e , W. R.; and Carter, L. D.: Flow-Field Measurements i n t h e Windward S u r f a c e Shock Layer of Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r C o n f i g u r a t i o n a t Mach Number 8. AEDC-TR-75-5 (AD-A012875), J u l y 1975.

9.

10. I-laus, J . R . ; G r i f f i t h , B. J . ; Szema, K. Y . ; and Best, J . T . : Hypersonic Mach Number and Real Gas E f f e c t s on Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Aerodynamics. AIAA P a p e r 83-0343, J a n . 1983.

11. Chaussee, D. S . ; P a t t e r s o n , J . L . ; K u t l e r , P . ; P u l l i a m , T . H . ; and S t e g e r , J . L.: A Numerical S i m u l a t i o n of Hypersonic Viscous Flows o v e r A r b i t r a r y Geometries a t High Angles o f Attack. AIM P a p e r 81-005, J a n . 1981.

*

Laminar V i s c o u s 12. Szema, K. Y . ; G r i f f i t h , B. J . ; Maus, J . R . ; and Best, J . T . : Flow-Field P r e d i c t i o n s o f S h u t t l e Like V e h i c l e Aerodynamics. AIAA P a p e r No. 53-0211, J a n . 1983. 13. R e s u l t s o f Tests of a Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r i n AEDC Tunnel F t o Determine Hypersonic H e a t i n g E f f e c t s . Report DMS-DR-2141, Data Management S e r v i c e s , C h r y s l e r C o r p o r a t i o n , June 1975.

14. Adams, J . C . , J r . ; and M a r t i n d a l e , W. R.: Hypersonic L i f t i n g Body Windward S u r f a c e Flow-Field A n a l y s i s f o r High Angles of I n c i d e n c e . AE3C-TR-73-2 (AD756499), Feb. 1973.

15. Results of a n I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Hypersonic Viscous I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s on a n 0 . 0 1 Scale S h u t t l e O r b i t e r 51-0 Model i n t h e AEDC-VKF Hypersonic Wind Tunnel.
Data M a n a g e m e n t Services,

C h r y s l e r Corporation, Rcport DMS-DR-2152,

Jan.

1976.

16. R e s u l t s of T e s t s Using a 0.02 S c a l e Model o f t h e Space S h u t t l e V e h i c l e O r b i t e r i n t h e AEDC S u p e r s o n i c Tunnel A and Hypersonic Tunnel B. Report DXS-DR-2415, Data Management Services, C h r y s l e r C o r p o r a t i o n , J a n . 1 9 8 0 .

3 59

CR)OfrihL B E E 1 9 OF POOR Q U A L m
Table I Matrix of Conditions for Inviscid Computations
Mach Number
Gas

23 V V

--Ideal Real Ideal Real Ideal Rea I Ideal Real Ideal Real
V V V
V

8

13

18

V V V
V
V V

V

V V V V
V

V
V V V X

V V V
V

v - Computation Completed x - Computation Failed

V
V

V

X

X

X

Real-Gas Conditions

M ,
M ,
= =

8
18

Mm = 13

, M

2 3

2622 mlsec (8600ftlsec) V = 4268 mlsec (14, OOO Wsec) , V = 5488 mlsec (18, OOO Wsec) , ,V = 6707 mlsec (22, OOO ftlsec)
V ,
=

Altitude = 46.3 km 1152,000 ft)
Altitude 57.3 km (188.000 ft)
Altitude = 64.6 km f212,OM~ftl

-

Altitude = 73.2 km Q40,MX) ft)

Table 1 I Viscous Test Case Conditions Case
1

2
20

3 20

4
20

5
20

a deg
#

25

Mal
TOY

7.92
K

23.0
234
I

23.0 234
1111.1

23.0 234
1111.1

23.0 234
1111.1

52. 7
300

Tw, K Re, rn-l

1111.1

18.23 x 16

7.87 x 1 d

1.57 x 1 4 0

3.02 x

Id

3.93 x

Id

360

254 cm (100 in. 1
k-4

F i g u r e 1.- Shuttle o r b i t e r geometry.

-x

XlL = 0.233

z&
L = 3277 cm (1,290 in.)
Figure 2.-

Plan Area 354.8 m2 (550,000 in.2)

Computational model g e o m e t r y .

36 1

0
XlL = 0.233

ORI.;ilN.G.L PAGE

I S

OF POOR Q U A L m

~. @

(-

-n--.z
XlL = 0.620

-

Viscous Model

I nviscid Model

xlL = 0.930
F i g u r e 2.- Concluded.

0.8-

0.6 -

h

a =30deg

cP

a=25deg
0.4 -

0.2-

%=a,
0

RemL=1.3x106

OH52 HSWT B, a 25 deg (ref. 9)
OH52 HSWT B, a = 30 d q CM3DTISTEIN Calculations, y = 1.4
1

-

0

A

I

I

!

I

362

a
M= ,8
0
0

CMDTISTEIN, y = 1.4 AEDC Tunnel B, ref. 10 RernL = 5 x lo6

a, deg
F i g u r e 4 . - Comparison of computed normal-force coefficient

with experimental data.

+o. 04
M= ,8

+o. 02
cM

0 CM3DT/STEIN, y

1.4 AEDC Tunnel B, ref. 10 ReoDL 5 x lo6 =

CG = 0.650 L

-0.02

-0.04
15

20

25 a, deg

30

35

40

Figure 5.- Comparison of computed pitching-moment coefficient w i t h experimental data.
363

300
0

a
0

200
PIP,

B

s
100

Q

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6
XlL

0.8

1.0

F i g u r e 6.- R e a l - g a s e f f e c t on w i n d w a r d centerline

pressure distribution.

1.2

1.0

0. a

CN
0.6
0
L I

0.4

Perfect Gas, y = 1.4 Equilibrium Air (CWDTISTEIN)

0.2 0
5 10

~-

15

20

25

Mm
F i g u r e 7 . - Real-gas e f f e c t on normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t .

364

M,=23 (CM3DTISTEI N)

OR101%4L PAGE F 8

OF POOR

QUALITY

CG = 0.650 L
o'M[ 0.02

-0.04

1
15 '50cm
-

~~

2 0

25

30
a, deg

35

40

45

Figure 8.- Real-gas e f f e c t on pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t .

\

M,=B

-25 cm

Mach Number Effect Reference /-MOO = 8, y
A

=

v

I

I

1.4, Perfect Gas
I

20

25
a , deg

30

35

40

Figure 9.- Combined Mach number and real-gas e f f e c t s on center-of-pressure l o c a t i o n .
365

0.6 B

Re = 1.824 x 10611~1 (5.56 x ldlft) ,T = 3' 0K (5400R) 0 Q~ = 0.1487 mw/m2sec

0, 0 .4

F i g u r e 10.- Comparison of t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l h e a t i n g r a t e s on t h e windward-side p i t c h p l a n e .

600
500
400

PIP,

300

-Re - - Re Re
0

7.9 x l % (65.5 km) O n = 3.15 x l d l m (85.9 km)
= = a0

(STEIN Inviscid), ref. 8

200
100

0
0
0.2
0.4

XlL

0.6

0.8

1.0

F i g u r e 11.- S u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n .
366

c.::
0.03

2 r, 1 ; :

L

-

h b = 23
D = 20dq , T 1111 K (ZK@R) CC = 0.650 L 0.0 PNS Solutions

CF r'gcr;

-

0.02 -

-%1

Moment Due to Induced Pressure

0
0

0.02

0. 04

0.06

, Y

=

{, t

-

Ma/ <-Re,,

Figure 12.- Pitching-moment coefficient.

0.20

b 2 = 3 a = 20deg T, = 1111 K (
0

W R )

,o PNS Solutions

Axial Force

0. 15

Axial Force

Due to Shear

CA
Axial Force Due to I nduced Pressure

0 10 .

High inviscid axial-force level is due to modified geometry blunt leading edge. 240,000 ft (STS -2)

5
0

I

+
I

1

I

I

I

0.02

Va

LG \%' Ma/

0.04

0. 06

Figure 13.- Axial-force coefficient.
367

16

-

r

Exper imentaI Experimental Data Tunnel F (ref. 13)

OTtlGiNAL PAGE I % OF POOR QUAlnV

12
= d q L M,, = M

sin a sin a

8

4
/ /
I

0

1

I

J
16

0

4

8 M sin a ,

12

Figure 14.- Experimental variation of (t) S, with Mm sin a.

R,L AVG J e ,

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 -

o Infinite Yawed Cylinder ThreeD imensi ona I Analysis for MDAClNASA Phase B Shuttle Design (ref. 14)
I
1
1

-

0

I

I

L

Figure 15.- Theoretical variation of C Fa,/Stm at high angle of attack.
368

Analytical Approach "Assumption +Viscous Drag and Viscous Moment Comes from Lower

Surface Only,
+ Viscous

Moment Can Be

Expressed i n Terms of
Viscous Drag. ACM,,= -CA,,= - 0.765

Az

va sin a (cos a)1.75

C

F i g u r e 16.- Viscous c o n t r i b u t i o n t o p i t c h i n g moment.

a = 2Odeg

Experimental Data,

>14

*RU"
(ref. 15)
Theoretical Viscous
Axial Force from
0.04 O..i
figure 13,

& = n. , -

. w . : cA

Empirical Equation

0
0
-0.02

q.(81
0.02

Val

0.04

0.06

ACM -0.01

Theorelical Viscous Moment from figure 12, &, = 23 7

eq. (91
0
0 0. 02

0.04

0.06

Val

F i g u r e 1 7 . - Comparison of t h e o r e t i c a l e m p i r i c a l , and e x p e r i m e n t a l v i s c o u s d r a g and moment d a t a .

369

.+
Mach Number Effects

&

1
+

DCM

*For this study, the effectiveness of the control surfaces (body flap and elevon) was taken from the Aerodynamic Design Data Book (ref. 3).
F i g u r e 18.- Methodology for extrapolation to flight conditions.

.t0.

02 I -

+O.

CM

-0.

I Mm = 8 (ref.
-0. 02

16)'

p--\

-'. \",
\

-0. 03

-0.04

20

c

Preflight Prediction Altitude = 73.1 km Q40,000 ft) 6, = O = ~ B F CG = 0.650 L
25

v\

0

30
a , deg
&f

35
u s i n g methodology model.

40

Figure 19.- Build-up of f l i g h t

370

o STS-2 Flight Data (ref. 10) CG = 0.668 L Va- 6500 mlsec (21,500 ftlsec) a-39deg (-Data Book, ref. 3)

(jRIGjNt7b ?,AGE rq OF POOR Q U A L m

F i g u r e 2 0 . - Comparison of p r e s e n t r e s u l t s f o r f i r s t body f l a p sweep w i t h f l i g h t data.

0 035 .

I
0.030
0. 025

I

See 'figure 27 for Definition of DCM '

CG = 0' L .650

I

0.020
0.015

0.010

0 005 .

I
I

Mach 8 Perfect Gas Reference Line
I

0

I

I

10
I

80

-8

45

50

55

60 65 Altitude, km

70

75

F i g u r e 21.- Computed DCM, laminar flow,

a = 4 5 ' .
37 1

/"

.

0.030, I

0.025
0.020

0, 3
0

0.015
/

n

0.01(
/

P / -lo
I
I

0.001
=%I

45

50

55

65 60 Altitude, km

I

I

I

1

8

i I
I

70
0

75

80

F i g u r e 2 2 . - Computed DCM, laminar flow, ct = 40

.

0.030
0.025

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CG c 0.650 L

Ma

0.OM
n

3

U

x

0.015 12

0.01(

10
I

0. oo!
I I I

I

I

- 7

a

44

50

55

60 65 A It itude, km
~1

70

75

F i g u r e 23.-

Computed DCM, laminar flow,

= 35'.

372

0.030
0.025

o-ota/
0.015
0.010

L '

1

I

I

I

I

1

1

CG = 0.650 L

LL

- 10
I

0

I

45

50

I

I

I

I

- 8
75
0

55

60

65

70

80

I
I

Altitude, km
Figure 24.-

Computed DCM, laminar flow, a

=

30

.

0.030
0.025

1

I

I

I

I

I

1

CG = 0.650 L
0.020
0.015 0.010

L2 1
10
I

i
80

0.005 (

=+45

I 50

I 55

60
Altitude, km

I

65

I

70

I

+ 8 75

i

Figure 25.- Computed DCM, laminar flow, a = . ' 5 2
373

0.030
0.025
0.020
LL 0

CG = 0.650 L

0.015
0.010 0. 005 0
I
I

n

I
I

10
80

45

50

55

60 65 Altitude, km

1 - 8 70
0

75

Figure 26.- Computed DCM, laminar flow,

c = 20 i

.

Flight DCM

AEDC DCM (from
=

8 (P.G. ))

CFD Calculations
CM (ADDBI at Flight CG Mach Effects Flight Mach No. Viscous DCM

+

- Mach 8 (P. G. 1

r Inviscid DCM

for be and bbf

Perfect-Gas and Equilibrium -

+
Would Be Zero i f ADDB Values Were Accurate Flight

I I

Viscous Effects

CFD plus Semi-Empirical Calculations of ACM Not

II
Flight CM = 0

II
DCMCFD

Figure 27.- Definition of DCM.

374

Sym Flight
0.04 0 0

CG Range

STS-3 0.6661 0.6648 STS-4 0.6648 - 0.6633

-

0.03 DCM 0.02

-

DCMFLT is Moment That Must Be Added to ADDB for Flight Agreement

AEDC (STS-31, D C ~ F D

0.01

0

AEDC (STS-41, DCMCFD *At Flight CG
I

0

0

I

1

I

I

I

F i g u r e 28.-

DCM comparisons, 0 ,and flight.

Aft Shift in CC Necessary for DCMFLT DCMCFD

-

I

From figure 28

a

-0.0100

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Altitude, km

Figure 29.- Sensitivity of flight DCM to f l i g h t CG, STS-3.

375

ORIGINAL FAGE OF POOR QUAbnV
- - . - -

---Ideal Gas

L*=* L M , = 2 3
Equilibrium Air

-----

I<

16.3 deg

(a1 Shock shapes.
S y h J

a

STS-1 STS-2

Open Symbols 73.1 Km f 0.15 Closed Symbols 73.1 Km 6.00

*

t

,

z 0

LL 2

a

/

O
-0.0040
0
4

8

12

16

20

24

~BFd q ,
bl DCM, STS-1 to -4.

Figure 30.- P o s s i b l e Mach number, r e a l - g a s , and viscous effects on
body i l a p effectiveness.

Mm-23 XlL = 1

a=Bdeg
T ,
=

1 1 K (2000°R) 11

Relm -

7.9 x 1 4 0 - x 1 P 16.0 Id 0 lo2 30.0 x 102

0

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

0

10
2,

20

30

cm

Figure 31.- Velocity p r o f i l e s entering the body f l a p o n the windward plane of symmetry.

376

o Altitude n Altitude

=

=

73.1 km P40,OOO ft) 57.9 km (190,000 ft)

NFLT
CNAEDC

Figure 32.-

(190,000

Variation of flight and computed CN at 57.9 km ft) a n d 73.1 km (240,000 ft:).

ATMOSPHERLC UNKNOWNS
0

ORBITER CENTER OF GRAVITY NOT AS ACCURATE A S DESIRED.

0

POSSIBLE SLIGHT CONFIGURATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLIGHT ORBITER AND WIND TUNNEL MODELS. HOWEVER, GREAT CARE WAS TAKEN TO MAKE SURE TUNNEL CONFIGURATIONS WERE CORRECT. PRECISE DETERMINATION OF PARAMETERS AS a,bBF,

be, CN, CM, AND CA.

0

AERODYNAMICS OF BODY FLAP AND ELEVONS AT H I G H MACH NUMBERS ESPECIALLY UNDER HIGHLY VISCOUS CONDITIONS M A Y BE DIFFERENT THAN ADDB.
Figure 3 3 . - Summary of selected flight and data book uncertainties.

377

Forehcdy Region Transonic Flow Codes Inviscid - C W D T Viscous - AIR30

30dq Effect of X S T on CM
n
=

Afterbod; Region Supersonic Flow Codes Inviscid - STEIN Viscous - SSPNS

Condition

(60 in. I

(100in. 1
of XST

Estimated Uncertainty in ACM Due to Variation i .ooO8 Based o n a Series of Computations o

-

Real Gas
. t

0.02246

+O. 02241

F i g u r e 34.-

Code matching a n a l y s i s .

0

0

Flight CA. 6, = 0 = ~ B F AEDC CA, 6 e = 0 = 6 8 ~ QJFLT"NAEDC ADDB

For Flight

C~~~

'0.06 .08

1l 3
percent

1.2

1. 1
1.0 0.9

'NUT -

C~~~~~

o. a
01
45

50

I

I

55

60

I

I

65

I

70

75

1

1

Altitude. km

F i g u r e 3 5 . - Comparison of f l i g h t CA and CN w i t h CFD calculations, STS-3.

3 78

0.10

I

1

I

1

1

0.08

0.06

'B B A
0.04

from

1. 2
1. 1 1.0 'NFLT 0.9
0. 8
C~~~~~

figure 35

0.02

0
45
50

55

60 65 Altitude, km

70

75

80

Figure 36.- Comparison of f l i g h t CA and CN with CFD calculations, STS-4.

1.4

1.3

S TS -3

1. 2

LID

$/-

AEDC Methodology Model

1.1

1.0
0.9
45
I

I

I

1

1

1

50

55

60 65 Altitude, km

70

75

80

Figure 37.- Comparison of flight L/D with AEDC methodology.

379

0

I A C K OF ACCURATE VALIDATION OF REAL-GAS AND MACH EFFECTS COMPUTATIONAL MODEL GEOMETRY DIFFERENCES
CODE MATING PROBLEMS

0
0

0

LIMITED COMPUTATIONS ESPECIALLY PNS ( a = 20 DEG ONLY)
(SOME SEMI-EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED WHICH DEGRADES

THE CFD RESULTS1
0
0

SEVERAL CODES REQUIRED TO DEVELOP METHODOLOGY MODEL LEE-SIDE FLOW NOT TREATED ACCURATELY OR I N SOME CASES NOT AT ALL BODY-FLAP FLOW SEPARATION AND VISCOUS PROBLEMS NOT ADDRESSED
F i g u r e 3 8 . - CR> uncertainties.

0

380

SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER REACTION CONTROL SUBSYSTEM FLIGHT DATA ANOMALIES
J. S. Stone and J. J . Baumbach Space Transportation and Systems Group

Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Downey, C a l i f o r n i a
B. B . Roberts N S Johnson Space Center AA Houston, Texas

SUMMARY
S h u t t l e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e f l i g h t d a t a obtained during o p e r a t i o n of t h e r e a c t i o n c o n t r o l subsystem (RCS) were compared w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s d e r i v e d from RCS wind t u n n e l t e s t : d a t a . This paper reviews t h e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e wind t u n n e l d a t a base and d i s c u s s e s how i t was used t o p r e d i c t t h e f u l l - s c a l e RCS e f f e c t s . F l i g h t and predict.ed d a t a comparisons i n c l u d e t h e l a t e r a l and d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic e f f e c t s of f i r i n g t h e s i d e j e t s , l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamics f o r p i t c h j e t s , and l a t e r a l aerodynamics f o r r o l l j e t s . F l i g h t d a t a anomalies r e s u l t i n g from wind t u n n e l l i m i t a t i o n s i n r e p r e s e n t i n g p o r t i o n s of t h e e n t r y f l i g h t t r a j e c t o r y are p r e s e n t e d . The cause of each d a t a anomaly i s d e s c r i b e d , as w e l l as a requirement f o r a d d i t i o n a l technica.1 a n a l y s i s t o e s t a b l i s h RCS e f f e c t s i m u l a t i o n parameters t h a t can be used t o update j e t e f f e c t technology.

INTRODUCTION
The forward and a f t RCS j e t s , shown i n figure 1, are used during Shuttle misDuring e n t r y , only t h e a f t RCS j e t s are

sions t o control the orbiter v e h i c l e .

f i r e d . The s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s a r e used f o r d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l down t o Mach 1.0, a t which time t h e rudder becomes f u l l y e f f e c t i v e f o r d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l . The up- and down-firing j e t s are a c t i v e f o r v e h i c l e p i t c h c o n t r o l down t o a dynamic p r e s s u r e of 20 psf and to 10 psf f o r r o l l c o n t r o l . The RCS engines o p e r a t e on monomethlhydrazine (MMH) f o r f u e l and n i t r o g e n t e t r o x i d e (N2O4) a s an o x i d i z e r . The r e s u l t a n t j e t exhaust not o n l y creates t h r u s t b u t a l s o a f f e c t s t h e l o c a l flow f i e l d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e j e t . This i n t e r f e r e n c e of t h e RCS j e t exhaust w i t h o r b i t e r aerodynamics was p r e d i c t e d from wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a ( r e f e r e n c e 1). Comparison of t h e s e d a t a with f l i g h t d a t a r e v e a l e d a number of anomalies. During t h e o r b i t e r e n t r y phase, a s e r i e s of bank r e v e r s a l s is executed t o m a i n t a i n a n a v i g a t i o n a l heading and t o manage v e h i c l e energy. These maneuvers

38 1

r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e use of t h e RCS s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s . During t h e f i r s t f l i g h t of t h e space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system (STS-11, t h e execution of t h e f i r s t bank r e s u l t e d i n damped o s c i l l a t i o n s i n s i d e s l i p angle ( B ) t h a t were i n excess of t h e p r e d i c t e d I n i t i a l computer simula1 v a l u e s (&t deg i n f l i g h t compared t o 2 deg p r e d i c t e d ) . t i o n s of t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r o l l i n g moment j e t i n t e r a c t i o n s (JI’s) f o r t h e s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s were overpredicted. A more r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s u s i n g a f l i g h t d a t a r e d u c t i o n program defined t h i s and o t h e r RCS d a t a anomalies i n d e t a i l .

A f l i g h t d a t a r e d u c t i o n program t h a t employs a motion-matching technique was used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e r e s u l t i n g f l i g h t aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments. This program (a modified v e r s i o n of t h e program discussed i n r e f e r e n c e 2) is c a l l e d t h e Modified Maximum Likelihood Estimator ( W E ) program. Program r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d by t h e i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s of t h e v e h i c l e motions during t h e f i r s t bank maneuver showed t h e s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment i n t e r a c t i o n s a t high f l i g h t a l t i t u d e s t o be overpred i c t e d . It was a l s o determined t h a t t h e s i d e - j e t yawing moment and side-force i n t e r a c t i o n s were l a r g e r than p r e d i c t e d a t a l l a l t i t u d e s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e sidej e t r o l l i n g moment i n t e r a c t i o n s were found t o be dependent on t h e number o f j e t s f i r i n g ; t h e r e w a s a l a r g e , sudden decrease i n t h e magnitude of t h i s r o l l i n g moment JI term at r e l a t i v e l y low f l i g h t a l t i t u d e s (Mm5). Analysis of f l i g h t aerodynamics for up- and down-firing j e t combinations revealed t h a t t h e pitching-moment i n t e r actions were o v e r p r e d i c t e d f o r a n e g a t i v e p i t c h command (one down-firing j e t per side) and that the rolling moment interaction was overpredicted for a positive roll comand (one l e f t down-firing j e t and one r i g h t u p - f i r i n g j e t ) .
These o b s e r v a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t d e v i a t i o n s from t h e p r e d i c t e d j e t e f f e c t d a t a published i n t h e O r b i t e r Aerodynamic Design Data Book ( r e f e r e n c e 1). Since t h e s e d a t a d i s c r e p a n c i e s were not a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e o r b i t e r f l i g h t c o n t r o l system, v e h i c l e motions induced by t h e j e t f i r i n g s had t o be balanced by a d d i t i o n a l j e t usage. This i n c r e a s e d usage d e p l e t e d RCS f u e l margins and t h u s became a primary concern with regard t o understanding t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e wind-tunnel-derived RCS data.

SYMBOLS
j e t nozzle e x i t a r e a ( i n . 2 )
nozzle d i s c h a r g e c o e f f i c i e n t ( p o j a c t u a l f P o j t h e o r e t i c a l )

*j
CD
“JI
XMP

RCS rolling-moment j e t - i n t e r a c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
plume impingement

JI

j e t aerodynamic i n t e r a c t i o n
Mach number jet-to-free-stream mass flow r a t i o

M

m j/mm

382

n

number of j e t s f i r i n g pressure (psi) dynamic p r e s s u r e ( p s f ) gas c o n s t a n t ( f t-lb/slug-deg Rankine)

P
q
R

Re 'rei; T

Reynolds number based on mean aerodynamic chord r e f e r e n c e area (in.2) temperature (deg Rankine angle of a t t a c k (deg) a n g l e of s i d e s l i p (deg) body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n angle elevon d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s n o z z l e e x i t l i p angle ( d e s ) jet-to-free-stream momentum r a t i o

c i

B
6BF be

Y
0n
Qjbm

Subocripts :

j

e x i t plane j e t gas c o n d i t i o n s l o c a l flow c o n d i t i o n s e x t e r n a l t o plume stagnation conditions free-stream c o n d i t i o n s

R
0

m

SIMULATION OF JET EFFECTS
The c l a s s i c a l c a s e of a j e t exhausting from a f l a t p l a t e i n t o a c r o s s flow prod.uces a flow s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s w e l l defined i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . However, t h e complex flow f i e l d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e RCS j e t s on t h e S h u t t l e o r b i t e r makes t h e aerodynamic i n f l u e n c e of t h e j e t s d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t a n a l y t i c a l l y . Thus, a wind tunn.el test program is mandatory t o develop j e t e f f e c t d a t a . Wind tunnel t e s t i n g r e q u i r e s t h e d e f i n i t i o n of j e t s i m u l a t i o n parameters t o ensure t h a t t h e modeled j e t e f f e c t s w i l l be e q u i v a l e n t t o f u l l - s c a l e f l i g h t , and t h e proper format f o r t h e s e parameters is s u b j e c t t o debate. Since wind t u n n e l

383

models are s c a l e d v e r s i o n s of t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e , t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter must account f o r t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e j e t exhaust s i z e and t h e v e h i c l e s i z e . Because of c o s t and s a f e t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e parameter must a l s o i n c l u d e t h e e f f e c t s of wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g w i t h j e t gases t h a t a r e not t h e a c t u a l f l i g h t v e h icl e j e t gases. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , documentation on t h e s u b j e c t suggests a number of s c a l e d j e t e f f e c t sirnulation parameters, i n c l u d i n g j e t p e n e t r a t i o n o r Mach d i s k h e i g h t , energy r a t i o , t h r u s t r a t i o , momentum r a t i o ( j e t t o f r e e s t r e a m ) , mass flow r a t i o , etc. Thus, t h e j e t aerodynamic i n t e r a c t i o n on t h e t e s t model i s equal t o t h a t on t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e when t h e c o r r e c t v a l u e of t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter i s achieved. The proper s i m u l a t i o n parameters o r combination of parameters was s e l e c t e d i n t h e S h u t t l e program through a n a l y s i s of an e x t e n s i v e RCS wind t u n n e l d a t a base.

WIND TUNNEL DATA BASE
A number of selected. Early marily t o r a t i o s from t h e l i s t of
s i m u l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s were t e s t e d before t h e c u r r e n t format w a s i n t h e t e s t program, j e t s i m u l a t i o n parameters were l i m i t e d p r i of momentun, n o z z l e expansion, and j e t pressure. Other parameters prospects previously discussed w e r e also investigated.

Exact s c a l i n g of f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s and v e h i c l e geometry was n o t always p o s s i b l e because of l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by model c o n s t r a i n t s , wind t u n n e l c a p a b i l i t i e s , and RCS j e t g a s r e s t r i c t i o n s . The RCS t e s t program i s summarized i n t a b l e I. The Largest model t e s t e d was 1.5 p e r c e n t of f u l l s c a l e , which c r e a t e d a problem i n manufacturing g e o m e t r i c a l l y s c a l e d RCS nozzles t h a t could p r o p e r l y d i s c h a r g e a gaseous medium w i t h o u t becoming contaminated. Therefore, nozzle expansion r a t i o s l a r g e r t h a n f u l l scale were t e s t e d . Wind t u n n e l t e s t c o n d i t i o n s were Limited t o Mach numbers l e s s t h a n o r equal t o 10.0, and free-stream p r e s s u r e l e v e l s were g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e i n f l i g h t . Reynolds numbers t e s t e d were lower t h a n full-scale flight. Because i t was i m p r a c t i c a l a s w e l l a s hazardous t o t e s t w i t h t h e a c t u a l engine o x i d i z e r and f u e l ( n i t r o g e n t e t r o x i d e and monomethlhydrazine), a number of g a s e s were t e s t e d i n t h e wind t u n n e l t o determine what e f f e c t s such parameters as s p e c i f i c h e a t r a t i o , gas molecular weight, and gas temperature would have on t h e simulated j e t e f f e c t s . The e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l d a t a base was examined t o determine t h e b e s t d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n parameters. T h i s ’ e f f o r t was completed under NASA c o n t r a c t by General Dynamics, Convair ( r e f e r e n c e 3 ) . Test d a t a were examined i n terms of j e t f i r i n g groups ( s i d e j e t s , u p - f i r i n g j e t s , and down-firing jets). During wind tunnel t e s t i n g , t h e up- and down-firing j e t p l u m e s impinged on o r b i t e r s u r f a c e s t o g e n e r a t e l o a d s and c r e a t e d a j e t i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e l o c a l flow f i e l d . The impingement of t h e s e plumes on t h e model was c a l c u l a t e d w i t h a computer program ( r e f e r e n c e 4 ) and s u b t r a c t e d from t h e model balance o u t p u t so t h a t only t h e j e t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t remained. The s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s , e x h a u s t i n g p a r a l l e l t o t h e wing, c r e a t e d a JI only. The r e s u l t a n t J I d a t a were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s plume s i m u l a t i o n parameters t o determine t h e most a c c u r a t e f i t . The d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n included t h e e f f e c t s of a l l te s t variables--bfach number, Reynolds number, angle of a t t a c k , angle Of s i d e s l i p , elevon d e f l e c t i o n , body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e , n o z z l e geometry, j e t chamber p r e s s u r e , and j e t gas p r o p e r t i e s . 384

a

The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s i d e - j e t d a t a c o r r e l a t e d b e s t with a modified m a n s flow r a t i o and angle of a t t a c k , whereas the up- and down-firing j e t d a t a corr e l a t e d b e s t with momentum r a t i o and angle of a t t a c k : Mass flow r a t i o m./mm = J (1)

=

YmR j T j

Note t h a t t h e mass flow r a t i o was derived independent of t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g and is a f u n c t i o n of t h e sine of t h e nozzle l i p angle. The f i n a l d a t a base i s summarized i n t a b l e XI. Thus, t h e JI's, given i n r e f e r e n c e 1, a r e f u n c t i o n s of angle of a t t a c k and sirnulation parameter only, with a secondary i n f l u e n c e of elevon d e f l e c t i o n and body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n . These d a t a were used t o c a l c u l a t e f l i g h t j e t i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r t h e r e q u i r e d j e t group, given t h e known v a l u e of t h e s i m u l a t i o n parameter, angle of a t t a c k , and elevon and body f l a p d e f l e c t i o n s . F l i g h t plume impingement was a n a l y t i c a l l y determined as a f u n c t i o n of the ambient p r e s s u r e and p e r t a i n s mainly t o h i g h - a l t i t u d e f l i g h t (q<20 psf 1.

The curve f i t of t h e t e s t d a t a with mass flow r a t i o f o r t h e s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s and w i t h momentum r a t i o f o r t h e up- and down-firing j e t s r e s u l t e d i n a c e r t a i n amount of t e s t d a t a s c a t t e r . General Dynamics then c a l c u l a t e d a t o l e r a n c e based on t h e s c a t t e r of t h e t e s t d a t a about t h e mean f o r each of t h e s i x aerodynamic f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s . Since t h e s e t o l e r a n c e s included t h e e f f e c t s of such a l a r g e range of J I s i m u l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s , they were thought t o provide adequate v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n of a c t u a l RCS f l i g h t values based on wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a .
The RCS JI d a t a were based on t e s t d a t a o b t a i n e d f o r Mach numbers between 2.5 and 10. However, a f t e r t h e RCS d a t a c o r r e l a t i o n was completed and published ( r e f e r e n c e 11, t h e need t o use the s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s f o r d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l down t o Mach 1.0 became apparent. Although d a t a as a f u n c t i o n of mass flow r a t i o down t o Mach 1.0 were a v a i l a b l e and considered independent of Mach number, a s p e c i a l wind tunnel t e s t (OA-255) was necessary for v e r i f i c a t i o n .
RCS test OA-255 u t i l i z e d a b a l a n c e s e l e c t e d for i t s s e n s i t i v i t y t o lateral

and directional forces and moments t o measure the small a n t i c i p a t e d loads accur a t e l y . T e s t r e s u l t s were compared w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g s i d e - j e t d a t a base. AI-though p r e v i o u s l y unobserved t r e n d s were apparent i n OA-255, t h e d a t a were s t i l l w i t h i n t h e d a t a b a s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e nominal J I d a t a . Hence, t h e OA-255 t e s t r e s u l t s were not included i n t h e c u r r e n t d a t a base ( r e f e r e n c e 1). FLIGHT DATA REDUCTION During S h u t t l e o r b i t e r e n t r y , t h e a f t RCS j e t s a r e f i r e d as o f t e n a s necessary u n t i l t h e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s become e f f e c t i v e . Because the jet-on times a r e gene r a l l y q u i t e s h o r t , reducing t h e j e t e f f e c t d a t a is a d i f f i c u l t t a s k . To e s t a b l i s h the v e h i c l e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a s e r i e s of planned t e s t maneuvers w a s

385

executed t h a t increased jet-on times t o provide b e t t e r R S d a t a . These maneuvers, C c a l l e d programmed t e s t i n p u t s ( P T I ' s ) , c o n s t i t u t e t h e b e s t source of f u l l - s c a l e RCS effectiveness data. The RCS e f f e c t i v e n e s s d a t a were e x t r a c t e d from f l i g h t by using t h e NASA DFRCdeveloped MMLE program, which produced t h e b e s t e s t i m a t e of aerodynamic derivat i v e s t o match t h e observed f l i g h t motion. The Rockwell v e r s i o n of t h i s program was s l i g h t l y modified t o u s e RCS f o r c e s and moments i n dimensional form and t h u s remove t h e dynamic p r e s s u r e dependence f o r t h e s e terms. The RCS was i n i t i a l l y modeled a s d e s c r i b e d i n r e f e r e n c e 1 but was l a t e r changed t o a more g e n e r a l independent j e t model i n which each two-, three-, o r f o u r y a w - j e t group produced an independent es tirnate of i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The PTI maneuvers produced t h e most r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s f o r c a s u a l maneuvers o r bank r e v e r s a l s . This d e t e r m i n a t i o n was based on t h e s c a t t e r i n t h e r e s u l t s and t h e lower u n c e r t a i n t y bounds computed by MMLE f o r each p o i n t during a n a l y s i s of t h e P T I maneuvers. The f a i r i n g s of t h e d a t a r e s u l t s tend t o f a v o r t h e s e P T I p o i n t s , and t h e o v e r a l l u n c e r t a i n t i e s tend t o bound t h e s e p o i n t s .
RCS AERODYNAMIC DATA ANALYSIS

Side-Firing Jets F l i g h t r o l l i n g moment J I e f f e c t s f o r t h e s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s i n t h e h i g h - a l t i t u d e p o r t i o n of e n t r y were s m a l l e r than p r e d i c t e d ( f i g u r e 2 ) . For lower f l i g h t a l t i t u d e s , i . e . , less than Mach 20, t h e f l i g h t d a t a show b e t t e r agreement with t h e o r b i t e r RCS d a t a base ( r e f e r e n c e 1). The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s h i g h - a l t i t u d e j e t s i m u l a t i o n e r r o r l i e s i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e flow f i e l d surrounding t h e s i d e j e t exhaust. A t h i g h a l t i t u d e s , t h e v e h i c l e a n g l e of a t t a c k i s approximately 40°, which causes flow s e p a r a t i o n on t h e upper s u r f a c e of t h e wing. When t h e RCS s i d e j e t s are f i r e d , t h e exhaust e n t e r s t h i s s e p a r a t e d flow r e g i o n and p r e s s u r i z e s t h e volume defined by t h e wing upper s u r f a c e and t h e flow s e p a r a t i o n wake boundaries. The aerodynamic flow f i e l d f o r t h i s h i g h - a l t i t u d e ' f l i g h t environment cannot be p r o p e r l y simulated i n t h e wind tunnel. For example, a t t h e f i r s t bank maneuv e r (Mach 2 4 ) , t h e f l i g h t dynamic p r e s s u r e (q) is approximately 14 p s f . The RCS wind t u n n e l d a t a base was l i m i t e d t o a maximum Mach number of 1 0 and minimum q of 75 p s f . The h i g h e r p r e s s u r e l e v e l i n t h e wind tunnel creates n o t only a h i g h e r p r e s s u r e f o r t h e j e t exhaust t o p e n e t r a t e but a l s o a wake boundary t h a t i s more r i g i d than t h a t normally encountered during f l i g h t . This boundary c o n s t r a i n t t r a p s t h e j e t exhaust over t h e wing s u r f a c e s while allowing a p o r t i o n t o escape through t h e downstream s t r u c t u r e of t h e wake. The flight-wake boundary, on t h e o t h e r hand, is much less r i g i d because of t h e low p r e s s u r e l e v e l s a s s o c i a t e d with the higha l t i t u d e f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n ; q = 14 psf f o r t h e f i r s t bank maneuver. The wake bounda r y i s much more easily d e f l e c t e d on t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e than on t h e wind t u n n e l model. This d i f f e r e n c e i n h i g h - a l t i t u d e p r e s s u r e l e v e l s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment J I .

386

The a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e was reviewed t o a s c e r t a i n t h e i n f l u e n c e of f r e e stream p r e s s u r e l e v e l s on wake s t r u c t u r e i n h i g h - a l t i t u d e f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . The only r e l a t e d geometry a p p l i c a t i o n came from t h e exhaust of a j e t i n t o a base flow region. The m a j o r i t y of t h e information obtained d e a l t w i t h low Mach and high p r e s s u r e s ; it d i d n o t focus on t h e problem of wake s t r u c t u r e i n f l u e n c e d by low f r e e - s t r e a m p r e s s u r e l e v e l s d u r i n g a c o n s t a n t jet-to-free-stream simulation. Addit i o n a l a n a l y s e s w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o d e f i n e t h e observed phenomenon. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e o v e r p r e d i c t i o n of t h e s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment J I , i t w a s detexmined t h a t t h e r o l l i n g moment JI f l i g h t d a t a depend on t h e number of s i d e j e t s f i r i n g . The t e s t d a t a used t o g e n e r a t e t h e e x i s t i n g d a t a base i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l l s i d e - j e t i n t e r a c t i o n s were independent of t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g . However, as shown i n f i g u r e 2 , f l i g h t d a t a f o r two and f o u r j e t s f i r i n g i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e are two d i s t i n c t l e v e l s i n t h e r o l l i n g moment JI. These d i f f e r e n c e s were not e v i d e n t i n t h e t e s t d a t a because of t e s t i n g c o n s t r a i n t s and balance accuracy. Test OA-255 included an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s of t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g , and OA-255 r e s u l t s tend t o s u b s t a n t i a t e f l i g h t r e s u l t s . Data from OA-255 a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 3 f o r t h r e e - j e t mass flow r a t i o s . A s i n d i c a t e d , t h e r e i s a d i s t h c t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t h r e e - j e t case and the s i n g l e - j e t case. This seems t o be more i n l i n e with t h e physics of t h e j e t exhaust flow i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h t h e o r b i t e r flow f i e l d . That i s , an i n c r e a s e i n the amount of f l u i d e x h a u s t i n g from a j e t group, be i t from an i n c r e a s e i n j e t chamber p r e s s u r e (causing an i n c r e a s e i n m*/&,) or an i n c r e a s e i n the number of j e t s f i r i n g , should g i v e t h e same r e s u l t . J A s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 3 , both an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g and an i n c r e a s e i n mass flow r a t i o r e s u l t i n an i n c r e a s e i n r o l l i n g moment J I .

0

Another d a t a anomaly appears as an abrupt decrease i n s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment JI i n t h e l a t e - e n t r y f l i g h t regime (Mach x . 5 ) . As shown i n f i g u r e 2 , t h i s anomaly occurs d u r i n g t h e decreasing angle-of-attack phase of e n t r y . The p r e s e n t d a t a base ( r e f e r e n c e 1) c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y of t e s t d a t a a t a mass flow r a t i o g r e a t e r than 0.001.. Below t h i s r a t i o , t h e J I d a t a were l i n e a r l y e x t r a p o l a t e d t o z e r o a t a mass flow r a t i o of zero. Since r e f e r e n c e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e s e d a t a as a f u n c t i o n of a n g l e of a t t a c k , terms c o n t r o l l i n g t h e shape of t h e decrease i n t h e r o l l i n g moment J I ( f i g u r e 2) are angle of a t t a c k , t h e l i n e a r decay i n mass flow r a t i o , and t h e d e c r e a s e i n e n t r y dynamic preseure. The r e s u l t a n t Aerodydnamic Design Data Book (ADDB) J I e x h i b i t s a smooth decay f o r mess flow r a t i o s less t h a n 0,001. Test OA-255 included mass flow r a t i o s of less than 0.001, and results i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f icant: r e d u c t i o n i n s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h d e c r e a s i n g a n g l e of
at ta c:k

.

F i g u r e 3 shows t h a t t h e p o i n t a t which t h e JI goes t o zero i n t e s t OA-255 depends on both angle of a t t a c k and j e t mass flow r a t i o . For t h e high-angle-ofa t t a c k c o n d i t i o n , t h e j e t s exhaust i n t o t h e wake generated by t h e wing and produce a s i p i f i c a n t r o l l i n g moment JI through p r e s s u r i z a t i o n of t h e upper wing s u r f a c e . For the low-angle-of-attack c a s e , t h e s e p a r a t i o n wake boundary passes underneath t h e s i d e - j e t exhaust plume and t h e problem becomes one of a j e t e x h a u s t i n g i n t o free-stream c r o s s flow. The s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s are t h e n unable t o a f f e c t t h e wing upper s u r f a c e , since t h e exhaust is "washed" away and t h e i n f l u e n c e i s no longer f e l t on t h e wing. The r e s u l t a n t r o l l i n g moment J I becomes small. Thus, r e s u l t s of OA-255 agree w i t h t h e e f f e c t s of a n g l e of a t t a c k i n f l i g h t test s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment JI.

387

The u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e f l i g h t d a t a i s a measure o f t h e s c a t t e r observed i n t h a t d a t a f o r a l l t h e sample f l i g h t maneuvers. The o r b i t e r u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n r e f e r ence 1, on t h e o t h e r hand, r e p r e s e n t t h e a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e d i c t e d and a c t u a l f l i g h t d a t a . As expected, t h e scatter i n t h e f l i g h t d a t a i s much l e s s than t h e r e f e r e n c e 1 u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Figure 4 compares f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d r o l l i n g moment JI f o r f o u r j e t s f i r i n g , i n c l u d i n g t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r each set of d a t a . The use of t h e small f l i g h t u n c e r t a i n t i e s becomes apparent when t r a j e c t o r y performance margin s t u d i e s a r e of i n t e r e s t . The s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment JI f l i g h t d a t a are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 5 and 6 . Where t h e s i d e j e t r o l l i n g moment JI i s produced p r i m a r i l y on t h e wing upper s u r f a c e , t h e s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment a r e produced on t h e s i d e of t h e o r b i t e r f u s e l a g e . The exhaust from t h e s i d e j e t s a f f e c t s t h e p r e s s u r e l e v e l on t h e s i d e of t h e f u s e l a g e e s s e n t i a l l y by p r e s s u r i z i n g t h e flow i n t h e s e p a r a t e d wake on t h e f u s e l a g e . The p o s i t i o n of t h e flow s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t , as i n f l a t - p l a t e flow, i s s e n s i t i v e t o Reynolds number. Using a f l a t - p l a t e analogy, f i g u r e 7 d e p i c t s t h e s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t on t h e fusel a g e a s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e free-stream Reynolds number. A higher Reynolds number causes t h e s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t t o move a f t so t h a t t h e j e t exhaust p r e s s u r i z e s a s m a l l e r volume, r e s u l t i n g i n h i g h e r p r e s s u r e s on t h e s i d e of t h e f u s e l a g e . Thus, t h e f l i g h t v e h i c l e flow f i e l d c o n s i s t s of h i g h f u s e l a g e p r e s s u r e s a c t i n g on t h e a f t p o r t i o n of t h e o r b i t e r and producing h i g h e r than p r e d i c t e d s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment. The wind t u n n e l flow f i e l d , on t h e o t h e r hand, h a s a flow s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t on t h e forward p a r t of t h e v e h i c l e ( f i g u r e 7 ) t h a t allows t h e jet-induced pressuri z a t i o n t o d i s s i p a t e a f t and/or above t h e v e h i c l e , r e s u l t i n g i n lower s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment. Hence, t h e f l i g h t s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment d a t a were, f o r t h e most p a r t , u n d e r p r e d i c t e d . Better agreement w i t h p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s i s observed a t h i g h f l i g h t a l t i t u d e s where t h e Reynolds numbers of f l i g h t and t e s t are in c l o s e r agreement. The d a t a anomalies observed f o r t h e s i d e - j e t r o l l i n g moment JI r e g a r d i n g a n g l e of a t t a c k and e f f e c t s of number of j e t s f i r i n g were n o t seen i n t h e s i d e f o r c e or yawing moment d a t a . The v e h i c l e a n g l e of a t t a c k had no d i s c e r n a b l e i n f l u e n c e , s i n c e t h e r e l a t i v e a n g l e of t h e f u s e l a g e s i d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e v e l o c i t y v e c t o r d i d not change w i t h a n g l e of a t t a c k . Although s i d e s l i p a n g l e could cause a change i n t h e f u s e l a g e s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t , d a t a are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o v a l i d a t e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i t h any degree of c e r t a i n t y . The i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g had no e f f e c t on t h e f u s e l a g e s i d e l o a d s because t h e l e a d i n g , upstream j e t is t h e primary d r i v e r on l o c a l n e a r - f i e l d p r e s s u r e s immediately i n f r o n t of t h e j e t s . The forward j e t s a c t t o s h i e l d t h e forebody from t h e e f f e c t s of a d d i t i o n a l downstream j e t s . For t h i s r e a s o n , t h e s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment are independent of t h e number of s i d e j e t s f i r i n g ( v e r i f i e d by t h e f l i g h t d a t a i n f i g u r e s 5 and 6 ) . The on-orbit impingement d a t a a r e considered t h e most a c c u r a t e . Figure 8 i n d i c a t e s impingement i s t h e major p o r t i o n of t h e measured f l i g h t d a t a j e t e f f e c t . Since t h e r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y high degree of confidence i n t h e on-orbit plume impingement terms, t h e conclusion may be drawn t h a t t h e J I terms were o v e r p r e d i c t e d .

The u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment f l i g h t d a t a presented i n f i g u r e s 5 and 6 a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than t h e r e f e r e n c e 1 v a l u e s . Data outs i d e of t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s have l a r g e MMLE t o l e r a n c e bands; t h e r e f o r e , they were weighted less i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e f l i g h t d a t a u n c e r t a i n t i e s . I t should be noted that: t h e yawing moment .I u n c e r t a i n t i e s a r e not symmetrical about t h e mean-flight T J I f a i r i n g because t h e u n c e r t a i n t y d a t a a r e derived independently by a number of f l i g h t d a t a r e d u c t i o n groups t h a t use d i s t i n c t , i n d i v i d u a l , nominal f l i g h t d a t a curves. Each u n c e r t a i n t y l i m i t was constructed t o i n c l u d e d a t a from each group. Theae u n c e r t a i n t i e s are considered an adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e f l i g h t d a t a scatter.
Up and Down Firing Jets

During t h e e n t r y phase, t h e up- and down-firing j e t s are used a s r e q u i r e d f o r p i t c h and r o l l c o n t r o l . A s mentioned earlier, RCS p i t c h commands are p o s s i b l e f o r dynamic p r e s s u r e s less than o r equal t o 20 psf and RCS r o l l commands a r e p o s s i b l e f o r dynamic p r e s s u r e s less than or equal t o 10 p s f . These p r e s s u r e l e v e l s occur a t high f l i g h t a l t i t u d e s and high Mach numbers with t h e o r b i t e r a t an angle of a t t a c k of 40". The s e p a r a t e d flow f i e l d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e up- and down-firing j e t s i s malogous t o t h e wake flow a s s o c i a t e d with t h e s i d e - f i r i n g j e t s . The up- and down-firing j e t s exhaust i n t o t h e wakes generated by t h e f u s e l a g e and wing. The r e s u l t is s i m i l a r t o t h a t encountered with t h e s i d e j e t s exhausting i n t o t h e wake from t h e wing; t h e J I ' s a r e overpredicted. The r o l l i n g moment of t h e r o l l j e t s (one l e f t up-firing and one r i g h t down-firing) and t h e p i t c h i n g moment of t h e p i t c h j e t s (one down-firing, both s i d e s ) i n f l i g h t a r e s m a l l e r than p r e d i c t e d ( f i g u r e 8 ) . When resu.lt of f o r entry u6in.g t h e an up o r a down j e t is f i r e d , a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e j e t loads is a t h e j e t exhaust impingment on t h e o r b i t e r . These terms w e r e p r e d i c t e d by using an a n a l y t i c a l model and €or on-orbit vacuum back-pressure by plume impingement computer program ( r e f e r e n c e 4).
CONCLUSION
The g e n e r a t i o n of the o r b i t e r RCS data base r e q u i r e d t h e development of simul a t i o n parameters t o c o r r e l a t e t h e RCS wind tunnel t e s t d a t a . A number of parameters suggested in t h e l i t e r a t u r e were i n v e s t i g a t e d . It was determined t h a t j e t mass flow r a t i o , based on one s i d e - j e t f i r i n g , b e s t c o r r e l a t e d t h e s i d e - j e t d a t a and t h a t j e t momentum r a t i o , based on t h e number of j e t s f i r i n g , b e s t c o r r e l a t e d t h e up- and down-firing j e t data. R e s u l t s from S h u t t l e f l i g h t s STS-1 through -4 i n d i c a t e t h a t a number o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t e d between t h e f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d R C S J I data.

The s i d e - f i r i n g RCS j e t s exhaust over t h e wing upper s u r f a c e , i n f l u e n c i n g t h e aerodynamics on t h a t s u r f a c e i n both t h e high-angle-of-at t a c k regime (when t h e j e t s are exhausting i n t o t h e wing wake) and t h e low-angle-of-attack regime (when t h e j e t s exhaust i n t o a c r o s s flow). The f l i g h t rolling-moment J I e f f e c t a t high a l t i tudes and high angles of a t t a c k i s smaller than p r e d i c t e d by t h e wind t u n n e l t e s t .

389

Similarly, the high-altitude operation of the up- and down-f iring jets indicates that,the jet effects are less than predicted. These results show the limitations of the wind tunnel data base in predicting high-altitude jet effects; vehicle wakeflow parameters such as ambient pressure cannot be duplicated in the tunnel. Further analysis is required to develop simulation parameters that can be used to predict the high-altitude jet effects in the wind tunnel. The side-firing jet aerodynamic interaction terms that originate on the side
of the orbiter fuselage (side force and yawing moment) are larger than predicted. The inability to duplicate the flow on the side of the fuselage in the wind tunnel produced the observed data anomaly and accented the need for better simulation of

flow separation regions during RCS wind tunnel testing. The sensitivity of the flow separation point to a Reynolds number appears to play a strong part in the magnitude of the wind-tunnel-derived jet effects originating on the side of the fuselage. The Shuttle orbiter RCS flight data have been used to describe a number of deficiencies in the existing wind-tunnel-derived jet effect data baee. Highaltitude jet. effect simulation appears to be difficult, if not impossible, in existing wind tunnel facilities. Further development in the technology, in conjunction with knowledge of flight data results, is required to establish simulation parameters that will define primary candidates to be duplicated during testing.

REFERENCES

1.
2.

Preoperational Aerodvnamic Design Data Book. Vol. 1. Orbiter Vehicle. Space Division, Rockwell International, SD72-SH-0060, Vol. 1L-6 (Apr. 1982). Users Manual for MMLE 3, a General Fortran Program for Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Technical Paper 1563 (Nov. 1980). Space Shuttle Orbiter Rear Mounted Reaction Control System Jet Interaction Study. Final Report. Convair Aerospace Division, General Dynamics, CASD-NSC-77-003 (May 1977). Final Report. Huntsville Research and Engineering Center, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., LMSC/HREC D162220-1 (Jan. 1972).

3.

4. Rocket Exhaust Plume ComDuter Program Imvrovement. Volume I

-

390

TABLE I.-RCS TEST DATA BASE FOR ENTRY
~ ~

ORlGiNAL FACE i 6 OF POOR QUALITY
Remarks Convair test
Yaw RCS d a t a only

Test No.

Test Type

Model
PRR

Scale

Test Facility

MA7
OA70 O 73 A

Force and h e a t tr an s fer Force Force Force and l i m i t e d pressure Force Force Force Force and l i m i t e d pressure Force Force Force and l i m i t e d base pressure

0.015 0.015 0.015

LaRC /UPWT LaRC/UPWT
ARC 3.5 f t

139B 139B 139B

-Tabulated pressure only J e t l o c a t i o n and c a n t angle study

QA8 5
LA2 5

0.010
0.010
0.010

LaRC/ CFHT LaRC/CFHT
L a R C / CFHT
LaRC / CFHT

139B 139B 139B
139
140A/B 2c 2c

OA8:Z
MA22 O 93 A! OA93 OAlci9

--

0.010

-On-orb it impingement

0.0175 0.010
0.0125 0.0125

LaRC/vacuum
CALS P N A

,
I

High Mach no.

AEDC/VKF B
LaRC/UPWT

I Forward and a f t jets

'

OA- i!5 5

Aft s i d e j e t s

I

TABLE XI.-RCS

JI AND IMPXNGEMENT D T BASE (LHS JETS) AA

Force or

Up-f

iring

-

moment component

jets

Down-firing j e t s
-

;
ABFIMp

Side-f i r i n g
jfts

JI

IMP

JI

IMP

6eJI 6BFJ1

GeIMp

JI

IMP deJI

Axial f o r c e

X

x

x

x
X

X
X I

X

Side f o r c e
Normal f o r c e R o l l i n g mom. P i t c h i n g mom. Yawing mom.

x x
I

I

X X
X

x / xx l x
X

X

X

X

X

x

x
X

x
X
I
I

x

X

1X

i x lI x :
I
I

,

'
I

X

x IX / x jx x jx I Ix
/ X
I

x x x x x
X I

x
x x x

39 1

F i g u r e 1.- Space Shuttle orbiter forward and aft RCS.

0

0

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

Mi'M-

0.01

0.1

1.o

SYM NO. OF JETS FIRING

0

I

x

5

0-

c

z

g
0 E

-10-

0

5 I

-20-

'ORBITER ADDE STS.2, .3, .4 FLIGHT DATA

2

B

-301

82,500

I

5

172.000
I

243,000

I

I 285,000

ALTITUDE (FT)
20

10

MACH
I

I

I

I

I

15

26

37

40

40

ANGLE OF ATTACK

F i g u r e 2 . - Yaw jet r o l l i n g moment interaction.

392

SY M
0

JET CONFIG 111 (AFT 3 JETS ON) 100 (FWD 1 JET ON)

- 0.001 1
O.Ool

0 0 000000O

r
O

hj/Mm 0.0006 =

T

Mj/Mm=O.O002

.

r 3

ooooc
1

- 0.001

I

F i g u r e 3 . - E f f e c t s of a n g l e of a t t a c k and number of j e t s on r o l l i n g moment J I .

FLIGHT DATA FAIRING. n = 4
\

ORBITER ADDB UNCERTAINTY

-40-

04

JETS FIRING STS-2, .3. .4 FLIGHT DATA
I

1

I

I

0

Figure 4.-

Comparison of f l i g h t and o r b i t e r ADDB-derived r o l l i n g moment JI and u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Four s i d e j e t s f i r i n g .

393

I

i

c)XIG,Mix P M E

OF POOR
2000

QUAL^

STS.2, -3, AND 4 FLIGHT DATA UNCERTAINTY.
1

I

IDATA

STS.2, -3, AND -4 FLIGHT

0 0
U

w

ORB11

a
w

-ADD6

.--

z
0 0

2
4

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 5 .

Yaw jet s i d e force i n t e r a c t i o n s .

a
SYM
NO. OF JETS FIRING 2
4

I

- 10
0 0

- 20

STS.2, -3, AND .4 FLIGHT DATA FAIRING

STS-2, 4 AND 4 FLIGHT .
DATA UNCERTAINTY

o.oow1

I

I

I

I

I

0.0001

0.001 MjlM,

0.01

0.1

10

Figure 6 . - Yaw j e t yawing moment i n t e r a c t i o n s .

394

e

r

X

2 0

40-

tn

O W

\
FLIGHT REYNOLDS NUMBER

a
K

E 30w

m

I
tn
I

20-

0

0
2

i

10-

5
MACH NUMBER

Figure 7.- Effect of Reynolds Number on fuselage flow separation.

ROLLING MOMENT AERO EFFECT OF POSITIVE 2-JET ROLL COUPLE
I

PITCHING MOMENT AERO EFFECT OF AFT DOWN-FIRING JETS - 1 PER SIDE

1
a
m

b -8

IMPINGEMENT

I

I

1

I

2

4

6 q (PSF)

0

10

I

S T

STXZDATA AFFTC

I

A

I

DFRC

-------

FLIGHT DATA FAIRING

ADDB

ADDB UNCERTAINTY

Figure 8.- Up/down-f ir ing jet effects

.
395

ANALYSIS OF SHUTTLE OSCILLATION IN THE MACH NUMBW = 1.7 TO MACH NUMBER = 1.0 RANGE
William

T. S u i t , Harold R. Compton, W i l l i a m I. S c a l l i o n ,
James R. S c h i e s s , and L . Sue Gahan N S Langley Research Center AA Hampton, V i r g i n i a
INTRODUCTION

The f i r s t f i v e f l i g h t s of t h e Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System (STS) have e x h i b i t e d 1.0 region unexpected l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n s i n t h e Mach Number = 1.7 t o Mach Number of t h e d e s c e n t t r a j e c t o r y . These o s c i l l a t i o n s can be s p l i t i n t o two p a r t s : a predominantly r o l l i n g o s c i l l a t i o n ref e r r e d t o as t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion ( r e f e r e n c e 1) and a long-period, large-amplitude o s c i l l a t i o n i n s i d e s l i p , r o l l rate, and yaw r a t e ( r e f e r e n c e 2 ) . During the long-period o s c i l l a t i o n , s i d e s l i p shows t h e l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e i n amplitude over t h a t observed f o r the " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion. The " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion begins a t about Mach Number = 1.7 and ends a t about Mach Number = 1.4. The long-period o s c i l l a t i o n begins a t about Mach 1.4 and ends a t about Mach Num'ber = 1.0 with a period of twenty t o t h i r t y seconds and runs f o r about one and a h a l f t o two cycles. These motions are analyzed i n t h i s paper i n order t o determine t h e i r source and t h e mechanism d r i v i n g them. They will f i r s t be examined t o determine how much of the motion can be explained using t h e set of equations t h a t c o n t a i n l i n e a r aerodynamic parameters whose v a l u e s are given i n r e f e r e n c e 3. Then d i f f e r e n c e s between measured moments and t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d using l i n e a r aerodynamics which are considered t o be due t o urunodeled moments ( r e f e r e n c e 2 ) w i l l be examined. P o s s i b l e e r r o r sources such as not i n c l u d i n g n o n l i n e a r aerodynamics i n the v e h i c l e model, measurement e r r o r s , and Based on t h e s e a n a l y s e s , t h e effect of p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s w i l l be considered. c o n c l u s i o n s as t o the n a t u r e and cause of the S h u t t l e l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n s w i l l be drawn. Comments w i l l a l s o be made on the d e f i c i e n c i e s of t h e a n a l y s i s and how the a n a l y s i s can be improved with b e t t e r i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . SYMBOLS b I
X,Y,Z

-

IXZ

wing span, f t moment of inertia about l o n g i t u d i n a l , l a t e r a l , and v e r t i c a l body axes, r e s p e c t i v e l y , s l u g - f t 2 product of i n e r t i a , slug-ft2

moment where s u b s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s type, f t - l b r o l l rate, p i t c h rate, and yaw rate, r e s p e c t i v e l y , r a d / s e c or

s
V
a
t)

deg/sec dynamic p r e s s u r e 1/2 p V2, l b / f t 2 wing area, f t 2 vehicle t o t a l velocity, ft/sec angle of a t t a c k , rad o r sec s i d e s l i p angle, rad or sec a i l e r o n and rudder d e f l e c t i o n , rad or deg air density, slugfft3

9

6a,5r
P

397

r o l l i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t

C t6 = r

a6
r

ORIPdFIRL p:+fx fi OF POOR Q U A L m

2v

c%

act
a
=

a 6
a

A d o t o v e r a symbol s i g n i f i e s a d e r i v a t i v e w i t h respect t o t i m e . ANALYSIS AND RESULTS APPLICATION OF DETERMINISTIC METHODS
The l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n s of t h e S h u t t l e v e h i c l e f o r f l i g h t s STS-2, - 3 , and -5 a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 1, 2 , and 3 . F l i g h t s 1 and 4 showed s i m i l a r o s c i l l a t o r y p a t t e r n s . The o s c i l l a t i o n is i n two p a r t s , t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " r o l l i n g motion f o l l o w e d by t h e long p e r i o d m o t i o n . The " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion was n o t o b v i o u s d u r i n g STS-2 ( f i g u r e 1) b e c a u s e test i n p u t s were i n i t i a t e d a t a b o u t t h e Mach number where t h e motion had s t a r t e d on STS-3 and STS-5. The d e t e r m i n i s t i c a n a l y s i s d i s c u s s e d i n r e f e r e n c e 2 was a p p l i e d t o t h e Mach number =. 1.7 t o Mach number = 1.0 r e g i o n of t h e S h u t t l e f l i g h t s . Only t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e moments a b o u t t h e x-body axis w i l l be p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s p a p e r . R o l l r a t e is t h e predominant motion i n t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n and f o r t h e l o n g - p e r i o d motion and an a n a l y s i s of moments about t h e x body a x i s is s u f f i c i e n t t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t w i l l be made c o n c e r n i n g t h e l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n problem. The g e n e r a l form of the e q u a t i o n s used f o r moments about the v e h i c l e x-axis is:

MRCS

i s t h e measured moment from t h e R e a c t i o n C o n t r o l System (RCS) i s t h e unrnodeled moment

In t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n t h e aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r s come from r e f e r e n c e 3 and t h e s t a t e s and c o n t r o l s are measured d u r i n g t h e S h u t t l e f l i g h t s .

398

The r e s u l t s of c a l c u l a t i n g t h e v a r i o u s moments f o r STS-2, -3, and -5 are shown in f i g u r e s 4 , 5, and 6 . During t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " p o r t i o n of t h e f l i g h t , t h e forms of and Pl were s i m i l a r , a p p e a r e d t o be b i a s e d and t h e peak-to-peak but MAEXO AERO v a r i a t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t ( f i g u r e s 4 , 5, and 6 ) . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t the form of t h e model, which is n o n l i n e a r i n t h e s t a t e s but l i n e a r i n t h e aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r s , i s correct. However, t o match t h e NTOTAL t i m e h i s t o r y t h e v a l u e s of t h e aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r s from r e f e r e n c e 3 w i l l have t o change. Also, d u r i n g t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " p o r t i o n of t h e time h i s t o r y M was s m a l l compared t o i t s v a l u e d u r i n g t h e l o n g -

EirOTAT,

UK

period o s c i l l a t i o n . Examination of t h e moment components i n d i c a t e t h a t d u r i n g t h e l o n g p e r i o d o s c i l l a t i o n , t h e moments r e s u l t i n g from s i d e s l i p , r o l l r a t e , and yaw rate i n t h e PIAERO term were not r e f l e c t e d i n t h e a n g u l a r a c c e l e r a t i o n terms of M TOTAL resultirg i n a large 1 1 term. An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e r e s u l t s and how they l e a d UK t o a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e o s c i l l a t o r y motions of t h e S h u t t l e v e h i c l e f o l l o w s .

ANALYSIS OF "QUARTER HERTZ" MOTION
The small unmodeled moment shown i n f i g u r e s 5 and 6 i m p l i e s t h i s motion can b e l a r g e l y e x p l a i n e d u s i n g a l i n e a r aerodynamic model and t h e measured d a t a . The q u e s t i o n s of what s t a r t s t h e motion and what o t h e r f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e i t , s t i l l must be answered. One p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e is p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on t h e wings and v e r t € c a l ta.Ll r e s u l t i n g from flow s e p a r a t i o n . The p r e s s u r e d a t a w a s examined and no p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n s of t h e p r o p e r f r e q u e n c y o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e time of t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " oscillation. The p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n p a t t e r n s s e e n on t h e wings d i d n o t a p p e a r t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t v e h i c l e moments. However, p r e s s u r e p a t t e r n s were seen on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l t h a t c o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t . These p a t t e r n s a r e shown f o r STS-3 and STS-5. T y p i c a l of t h e p a t t e r n s are t h o s e f o r s t a t i o n s a l o n g t h e .1 chord of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l ( f i g u r e s 7 and 8). T i m e h i s t o r i e s from STS-3 show v a r i o u s v e h i c l e states d u r i n g t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion ( f i g u r e 2 ) . I n i t i a l l y t h e yaw r a t e b u i l d s g r a d u a l l y ( s t e p 1 f i g u r e 9) and t h e T h i s r u d d e r change r u d d e r changes t o s t o p t h e yaw r a t e i n c r e a s e ( s t e p 2 f i g u r e 9 ) . c a u s e s a r o l l r a t e and a l s o creates a s i d e f o r c e on t h e v e h i c l e ( s t e p 2 f i g u r e 9 ) . The r e s u l t i n g l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n is fed i n t o t h e c o n t r o l system, m u l t i p l i e d by a l a r g e g a i n , and summed w i t h t h e yaw r a t e . When t h i s combined s i g n a l r e a c h e s a threshold value the yaw RCS fires to drive the y a w rate to zero (step 3 figure 9 ) . However, the r o l l component of the yaw j e t is i n a d i r e c t i o n that increases t h e r o l l r a t e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e r u d d e r d e f l e c t i o n . Now t h e a i l e r o n is a c t i v a t e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e roll r a t e . The a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n o v e r - c o r r e c t s and t h e r o l l rate changes s i g n (step 4 figure 9). The a i l e r o n t h e n a l s o changes t o s u p p r e s s t h e r o l l r a t e , but s i n c e t h e r u d d e r and a i l e r o n are coupled t h e r u d d e r a l s o moves and h e l p s c r e a t e a yaw r a t e so t h a t t h e c y c l e b e g i n s a g a i n . I n t h e c a s e of STS-3 t h i s sequence i s r e p e a t e d t h r e e t i m e s ( f i g u r e 2). The rates t h e n tend t o s t a b i l i z e , b u t t h e yaw rate starts t o become more n e g a t i v e , c a u s i n g t h e r u d d e r t o d e f l e c t . The r u d d e r d e f l e c t i o n now i n t r o d u c e s a n e g a t i v e l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n and a n e g a t i v e r o l l rate. Again, when t h e combined yaw rate and l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n terms i n t h e c o n t r o l system become l a r g e enough t h e yaw RCS f i r e s t o r e d u c e t h e yaw r a t e . I n so d o i n g t h e roll r a t e i s increased, the a i l e r o n over-corrects and a n o t h e r o s c i l l a t i o n c y c l e i s i n t r o d u c e d ( f i g u r e 2 ) . A similar p a t t e r n i s s e e n f o r STS-5 ( f i g u r e 3). A q u e s t i o n s t i l l remains r e l a t i v e t o t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n . What causes t h e yaw rate b u i l d u p p r e c e d i n g t h e c o n t r o l sequence d i s c u s s e d , and why d o e s t h e yaw rate b u i l d up a f t e r t h e RCS i n p u t s t o s u p p r e s s i t ? I n e a c h of t h e s e c a s e s t h e yaw rate i s g r e a t e r t h a n might be expected from t h e aerodynamic c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s seen. A p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n will now be d i s c u s s e d .
399

The p r e s s u r e s on the wings and v e r t i c a l t a i l d i d not show an o s c i l l a t o r y pattern t h a t could d r i v e t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n s d i r e c t l y , however, t h e r e were p r e s s u r e p a t t e r n s on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l t h a t could p o s s i b l y e x p l a i n the yaw rate p a t t e r n t h a t w a s seen i n f i g u r e 2 . Figures 7 and 8 show r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r e s s u r e A e s t i m a t e of t h e p r e s s u r e n p a t t e r n s on the v e r t i c a l t a i l f o r STS-3 and STS-5. change due t o a l t i t u d e change is p l o t t e d on t h e f i g u r e . I f t h e average s l o p e of t h e measured p r e s s u r e s is less than the a l t i t u d e change curve, t h i s r e p r e s e n t s a reduced p r e s s u r e a t t h e measurement p o i n t s . The p r e s s u r e p o i n t s shown on f i g u r e s 7 and 8 are a l l on t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l so a reduced pressure a t these l o c a t i o n s could imply a movement of the t a i l t o t h e l e f t o r a p o s i t i v e yaw rate. Simultaneous examination of f i g u r e s 2 and 7 f o r STS-3 shows t h a t f o r time 0 t o 1 seconds t h e p r e s s u r e is reduced and when t h e r e i s no RCS f i r i n g and t h e rudder 1 d e f l e c t i o n is small, the v e h i c l e tends t o have a p o s i t i v e yaw rate. From 1 t o 18 1 seconds t h e r e a r e two s l o p e changes and the yaw rate s t a y s c l o s e t o zero. Then a t a t i m e of about 18 seconds t h e p r e s s u r e changes so t h a t i t s slope is g r e a t e r than t h e nominal, implying a n e g a t i v e yaw r a t e , and the change i n yaw rate occurs. Figures 3 and 8 show s i m i l a r t r e n d s f o r STS-5. So a connection between p r e s s u r e changes on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l and t h e o n s e t and p e r s i s t e n c e of t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d . Even f a i r l y small p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n s a c t i n g on a l a r g e surface such as t h e S h u t t l e v e r t i c a l t a i l f o r a f i v e t o t e n second i n t e r v a l can i n t r o d u c e a s i g n i f i c a n t rate. However, t h e r a t e s generated a r e long-term e f f e c t s and the s h o r t p e r i o d motions s e e n are a f u n c t i o n of t h e . c o n t r o 1 system. For t h i s reason t h e l i n e a r model and the d a t a book aerodynamics e x p l a i n most of t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion.

Analysis of Long Period O s c i l l a t i o n For a l l t h e S h u t t l e f l i g h t s examined ( f i g u r e s 4, 5, and 6 ) t h e d e t e r m i n i s t i c This i m p l i e s a n a l y s i s shows a l a r g e unmodeled e r r o r during t h e long-period motion. t h a t t h e l i n e a r aerodynamic model i n conjunction w i t h t h e measured f l i g h t d a t a does not d e s c r i b e t h e v e h i c l e motions. The change i n c h a r a c t e r of t h e l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n f o r s h o r t to long period is c o i n c i d e n t with t h e r e d u c t i o n of the g a i n on l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n so t h a t t h e RCS does not f i r e as o f t e n , i f a t a l l . Three p o s s i b l e causes considered f o r t h e longperiod o s c i l l a t i o n were t h e e f f e c t of n o n l i n e a r aerodynamic terms which were not included i n t h e mathematical model d e s c r i b i n g t h e v e h i c l e motions, e r r o r s i n t h e measured data, and unmodeled moments caused by p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on t h e wings and vertical tail. These e r r o r sources w i l l be examined and a probable cause of t h e unmodeled e r r o r determined.

Urnodeled Nonlinear Aerodynamics This e f f e c t was thought t o be s m a l l s i n c e t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k w a s less than 15" and i t s v a r i a t i o n s were less than 3". Also, rates and displacements were small. However, f o r completeness two p o s s i b l e n o n l i n e a r terms were considered. The p o s s i b l e term were discussed i n r e f e r e n c e 4 and i f a higher order s i d e s l i p e f f e c t s of a CR ea should be included t o maintain a c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d of CI1 term were r e q u i r e d , C

llp3

with b e t a . These two terms were included i n t h e aerodynamic model. A regression program which i s used t o s e l e c t t h e aerodynamic parameters t h a t most a f f e c t t h e The v e h i c l e motion ( r e f e r e n c e 5) was a p p l i e d t o f l i g h t d a t a from 9 3 - 2 and STS-3. two nonlinear terms were not found t o have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the v e h i c l e
400

motions.

A s a n a d d i t i o n a l check, v a r i o u s v a l u e s of Ct
BU

were used i n a maximum-

1 : i k e l i h o o d p a r a m e t e r e x t r a c t i o n program and t h e r e s u l t s showed t h e v e h i c l e r e s p o n s e to be i n s e n s i t i v e t o l a r g e changes i n Ct

.

Ba

Measurement E r r o r S i n c e t h e unmodeled e r r o r was s m a l l f o r t h e q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion, any measurement e r r o r s t h a t e x i s t e d d u r i n g t h a t t i m e were s m a l l . The l o n g - p e r i o d m o t i o n i n m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " motion so t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e mcsasurement e r r o r would s u d d e n l y increase enough t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e unmodeled e r r o r i s remote. However, a g a i n f o r c o m p l e t e n e s s , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a s i g n i f i c a n t measurement e r r o r w i l l be examined. The s t a t e s t h a t w i l l be checked w i l l be t h e r o l l a c c r 2 l e r a t i o n and s i d e s l i p . I f the r o l l acceleration is i n e r r o r , since i t is the t h i s would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t t h e v a l u e of t h e unmodeled p r i m a r y term i n M TOTAL' moment. The r o l l i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n w a s measured d i r e c t l y f o r STS-3 and STS-5, but n o t f o r STS-I!. T h e r e f o r e , f o r STS-2 t h e r o l l a c c e l e r a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g a s p l l n e f i t t o t h e r o l l rate and d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e r e s u l t i n g t i m e h i s t o r y . To check t h e a c c u r a c y of t h i s method t h e r o l l a c c e l e r a t i o n was o b t a i n e d by both methods f o r STS-5. The comparison is shown i n f i g u r e 10. The d i f f e r e n c e s a r e small and any urimodeled e r r o r s e e n i n f i g u r e s 4, 5, and 6 is much l a r g e r t h a n any p o s s i b l e e r r o r i r TO 1 a cc e 1 r a t i o n . 1 e P o s s i b l e s i d e s l i p e r r o r s will now be c o n s i d e r e d . F i g u r e s 4 , 5, and 6 show a p a t i r e r n i n unmodeled moments i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s i d e l i p is t h e l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t o r t o and i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e primary c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e unmodeled moment. T h e r e is measured RCS o r aerodynamic c o n t r o l i n p u t t h a t so t h a t i t would have a s h a p e s i m i l a r t o MMRO would c a u s e a d i s t u r b a n c e i n i n the long-period o s c i l l a t i o n parameter

a

~iPmzo
no
rt g

%0::AL

ion.

This was i n d e p e n d e n t l y i l l u s t r a t e d when a maximum-likelihood

program was a p p l i e d t o d a t a from STS-3. A f a i r l y good f i t was o b t a i n e d f o r t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " p a r t of t h e d a t a b u t when t h e l o n g - p e r i o d s i d e s l i p o s c i l l a t i o n d a t a w e r e added t h e f i t was poor f o r r o l l r a t e and s i d e s l i p because t h e measured c o n t r o l i n p u t s were n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c a u s e t h e r e s p o n s e s t h a t c o u l d f i t b o t h s e t s of d a t a ( f i>;lJre 1 1 ) . T h e development of t h e c o r r e c t e d s i d e s l i p t i m e h i s t o r y w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d . The raw a e a s u r e d s i d e s l i p w a s t h o u g h t f o r some f l i g h t s t o be i n e r r o r by as much as

6" b e c a u s e wind c o r r e c t i o n s had n o t been a p p l i e d . After applying corrections f o r w i n d s based on t h e b e s t m e t e o r o l o g i c a l d a t a a v a i l a b l e , a s i d e s l i p time h i s t o r y b a s e d on v e h i c l e r a t e s and a c c e l e r a t i o n s w a s g e n e r a t e d . The r e c o n s t r u c t e d s i d e s l i p r e p r e s e n t s t h e best estimate of s i d e s l i p c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r measured d a t a ( r e f e r e n c e 6). T h i s s i d e s l i p is t h o u g h t t o be good t o a t least h a l f a d e g r e e . T o check t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n , t h e method d i s c u s s e d i n r e f e r e n c e 7 was u s e d . The measured r o l l r a t e , yaw r a t e , and l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n were t r e a t e d as known q u a r t i t i e s and time h i s t o r i e s of s i d e s l i p and bank a n g l e were c a l c u l a t e d . A s c a n be seer from f i g u r e 12, t h e match w i t h t h e measured s i d e s l i p and bank a n g l e was good. T h i s r e s u l t i m p l i e s t h a t t h e b e s t estimate of s i d e s l i p i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e measured r o l l rate, yaw r a t e , and l a t e r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n and i s p r o b a b l y more a c c u r a t e than h a l f a degree. I f , however, t h e r e w a s a c o n s i s t e n t s i d e s l i p e r r o r of h a l f of d e g r e e , t h i s would account f o r about 45,000 f t - l b of the over 150,000 f t - l b

40 1

unmodeled moment seen i n f i g u r e 5. The maximum p o s s i b l e s i d e s l i p e r r o r can account f o r a t most one-third of t h e unmodeled moment.

PRESSURE GRADIENTS ON THE WINGS AND VERTICAL TAIL
A examination of f i g u r e s 4, 5, and 6 shows t h a t the f o r c e s t h a t cause t h e longn period o s c i l l a t i o n do not e x c i t e the angular a c c e l e r a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Continuing the a n a l y s i s begun when d i s c u s s i n g the " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n s w e look a t t h e P r e s s u r e d a t a from STS-2, -3, and -5 w i l l be p r e s s u r e t r e n d s on the vertical t a i l . used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . The STS-2 unmodeled moment compares very w e l l i n form and timing with t h e p r e s s u r e d a t a along t h e 0.1 chord l i n e ( f i g u r e s 4 and 1 3 ) . The comparisons between t h e unmodeled moments and t h e pressure d a t a were not as good f o r STS-3 and 5 ( f i g u r e s 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8 ) . The p r e s s u r e trends and t i m e s between changes i n t r e n d s were g e n e r a l l y similar t o t h o s e of the unmodeled moments, but the timing vas d i f f e r e n t . The t r e n d changes seen i n t h e pressure d a t a tended t o l e a d those of the unmodeled moments. However, t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s are c l o s e enough t o suggest t h a t a p o r t i o n of t h e A similar unmodeled moment i s due t o p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l . a n a l y s i s of t h e wing p r e s s u r e s did not show t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r e s s u r e p a t t e r n s and t h e unmodeled moments. Approximate c a l c u l a t i o n s were made t o determine the p o s s i b l e r o l l i n g moment from t h e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on the v e r t i c a l t a i l . The c a l c u l a t i o n s showed t h a t r o l l i n g moments with magnitudes from one-half to two-thirds of t h e unmodeled moment could a r i s e from p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on the v e r t i c a l t a i l . The d i f f i c u l t y i n drawing conclusions from t h e s e r e s u l t s a r i s e s from t h e assumptions made when t h e moment c a l c u l a t i o n s were made. The most c r i t i c a l assumption arises from t h e f a c t t h a t the S h u t t l e v e h i c l e only has p r e s s u r e p o i n t s on t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l . Therefore, i n making t h e moment c a l c u l a t i o n s the p r e s s u r e on t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l was assumed constant and a l l moments r e s u l t e d from t h e g r a d i e n t s on the left side. Based on t h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e , the g r e a t e s t p a r t of t h e unmodeled moment appears t o come f r o m t h e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t on the v e r t i c a l t a i l . A 10 t o 15 percent change in the d a t a book v a l u e s €or C, and CQ along w i t h a q u a r t e r of a degree e r r o r i n f3 6a 6 c o u l d account € o r t h e rest of t h e unmodeled moment. One f i n a l comment on t h e e f f e c t of t h e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s a c t i n g on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l of the S h u t t l e : an examination of the region from time 53 sec t o time 67 sec of f i g u r e 1 shows t h a t f o r STS-2, t h e r o l l r a t e and yaw rate are o p p o s i t e from the r a t e s t h a t would be expected from t h e c o n t r o l i n p u t s shown. I n t h e same t i m e period of f i g u r e 13, a p r e s s u r e change p r o f i l e i s seen t h a t almost e x a c t l y corresponds t o t h e r o l l rates seen on f i g u r e 1 and shows the same t r e n d s as t h e yaw rate, but with about a one second lead i n t i m e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , f o r t h e r o l l r a t e case a t 54 seconds A t this t h e a i l e r o n i s c l o s e t o zero b u t t h e r o l l r a t e is becoming n e g a t i v e . t i m e t h e p r e s s u r e shows a reducing t r e n d on t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l which would c r e a t e a n e g a t i v e r o l l . A t about 57 seconds the r o l l rate s t a r t s t o become more p o s i t i v e and a t t h i s same t i m e t h e p r e s s u r e on the v e r t i c a l t a i l becomes A t 60 seconds t h e r o l l rate t u r n s more n e g a t i v e and the p r e s s u r e s h a r p l y higher. begins t o d e c r e a s e r e l a t i v e t o t h e nominal l i n e . A t 65 seconds t h e roll rate i n c r e a s e s and a g a i n t h e p r e s s u r e trend shows increased p r e s s u r e on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l . F i n a l l y , a t 66 seconds the r o l l rate d e c r e a s e s and the p r e s s u r e also begins t o decrease. The aerodynamic c o n t r o l s are a c t i v e and have t h e e f f e c t of slowing t h e

40 2

a n g u l a r r a t e s so t h a t the maximum r a t e s a t t a i n e d are suppressed, but the d r i v e r of t h e r a t e s during t h i s p a r t of STS-2 i s the pressure g r a d i e n t on the v e r t i c a l t a l l .
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The preceding a n a l y s i s leads t o the following conclusions: (1) t h e " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n , while i n i t i a t e d by pressure g r a d i e n t s , i s s u s t a i n e d by the r e a c t i o n of t h e c o n t r o l system t o t h e e x t e r n a l l y induced rates; ( 2 ) t h e l o n g - p e r i o d o s c i l l a t i o n which follows the " q u a r t e r h e r t z " o s c i l l a t i o n is a p p a r e n t l y caused by pressure g r a d i e n t s on the vertical t a i l ; (3) the s e p a r a t i o n between the long- and s h o r t period l a t e r a l motions appears t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e r e d u c t i o n i n the gain on l a t e r a l iiccelera t i o n ; (4) the l a r g e unmodeled moment seen during t h e long- period o s c i l l a t i o n occurs because t h e r e is no c o n t r o l input t o the v e h i c l e t h a t would cause an a n g u l a r a c c e l e r a t i o n compatible with t h e rates and displacements measured; ( 5 ) s i n c e t h e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s do not account f o r a l l the unmodeled m o m e n t , the rest I s thought to be caused by s i d e s l i p e r r o r and e r r o r i n t h e assumed d a t a book aerodynamic parameters; and (6) i n the f l i g h t regime i n v e s t i g a t e d , t h e motions generated by t h e p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s should be c o n t r o l l a b l e by the aerodynamic c o n t r o l s . The maximum c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s seen, r e g a r d l e s s of the magnitude of the p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s , were about twenty p e r c e n t of f u l l s c a l e f o r the rudder and between ten and f i f t e e n p e r c e n t These d e f l e c t i o n s in most cases were s u f f i c i e n t t o of f u l l scale f o r the a i l e r o n . s t o p t h e i n c r e a s e of t h e angular r a t e s and l a r g e r d e f l e c t i o n s could completely s u ppre ss them. F i n a l l y , how could we do b e t t e r next time? 1. The problem of analyzing the l a t e r a l o s c i l l a t i o n s i n the Mach Number = 1.7 t o Mach Number = 1.0 region of the S h u t t l e f l i g h t s was made very d i f f i c u l t because of inadequate data. 2. Without p r e s s u r e information on both s i d e s of the v e h i c l e any a n a l y s i s i s speculation. 3 . Without an a c c u r a t e a i r d a t a system t h e r e is p o t e n t i a l e r r o r i n a n g l e of att:ack and a n g l e of s i d e s l i p . These e r r o r s d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a l l aerodynamic a n a l y s i s . 4 . I f t h e r e is s e r i o u s interest i n the a n a l y s i s of S h u t t l e - t y p e v e h i c l e s a t low Mach numbers, p r e s s u r e sensors with s u f f i c i e n t range so t h a t they w i l l not s a t u r a t e must be provided. 5. The r e s u l t s of any i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e only as good a s the d a t a a v a i l a b l e and at t h i s point i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e l a t e r a l motions of t h e S h u t t l e vehicle i n t h e Mach Number = 1.7 t o Mach Number = 1 0 range, t h e r e s u l t s a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e . . REFERENCES

1.

Underwood, J i m y M.: C o r r e l a t i o n of Flight with Wind Tunnel S t a b i l i t y and Control Aerodynamics of t h e Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r . P a p e r presented a t t h e 1 3 t h Congress of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Council of t h e Aeronautical Sciences/AIAA A i r c r a f t Systems and Techn.ology Conference, S e a t t l e , Washington, August 22-27, 1982. S u i t , W. T.; Compton, B. R.; S c a l l i o n , W. I.; and S c h i e s s , J. R: . Simplified Analysis Techniques t o Support the Determination of S h u t t l e Aerodynamics. AIM Paper 83-0117, 1983. Whitnah, Program. Authur M.; and H l l l j e , E r n e s t R.: A I M Paper 82-0562, 1982. Space S h u t t l e Wlnd-Tunnel Testing

2.

3.

4. Raper, J. L.:

R o l l i n g Motion of 79-Degree Clipped Delta Wing C o n f i g u r a t i o n a t Supersonic Speed Free F l i g h t I n v e s t i g a t i o n . NASA TN D-2017, 1963.

-

403

5.

Klein, V . ; Batterson, J . G . ; and Murphy, P. C.: Determination of Airplane Model Structure from Flight Data by Using Modified Stepwise Regression. NASA TP-1916, 1981.

6.

Kelly, G . Mel; F i n d l a y , John T . ; Compton, H. R.: Wind Estimates Using Air Data Probe Measurements to Evaluate Meteorological Measurements Made During Space Shuttle Entries. AIAA Paper 82-1333, 1982.
Compatibility Check of Measured Klein, Vladislav; and Schiess, James R.: NASA Aircraft Responses Using Kinematic Equations and Extended Kalrnan F i l t e r .

7.

TN D-8514, 1977.

404

e
r,rad 0

...

0

IO

20

30

40

50

60

70

. 80

T I ME, sec

(a> Responses.

25000 MX-RCS

-25000

-

0

IO

20

30

40 50 TI ME. s e c

60

70

80

(b) Inputs.
Figure 1.- STS-2 f l i g h t data t i m e h i s t o r i e s .

405

...

. . .

.

...

- __ ........
._ .-

... ...

. -

.. 05

.....................

-

.......

........

I

-.......
.

, ...........
ay, g-units

.

. . . . . .

o
It-I I
. . I
1

-

I

I

.

I

1

1

0

IO

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

T I ME. s e c

(a> Responses.

. . . . .

...........

-

....

-

M X - R C 5 0 00 [ y - , ,S 0
-15000

I
_-

--

, j?
!I
I
20

I
-

75000
MZ-RCS

0

- 75000
0

li
10

u-=
..

-

.

1

1

I

30

40 50 T I ME, s e c

60

70

80

(b) I n p u t s .

F i g u r e 2.- STS-3 flight data time h i s t o r i e s .

406

. 05 F

- . -.---.

. .

ay,g-units O

-. I

0

IO
20
30

40

50

60

70

80

T I ME. sec

(a) Responses.

-. I

10 20

V

M2-RCS
-135000

0

30

40 T I ME, s e t

50

60

70

ED

(b) Inputs.
Figure 3.- STS-5 f l i g h t data t i m e h i s t o r i e s .

407

OHIQNAL PAGE F% OF POOR Q U A L m

F i g u r e 4 . - Vehicle moments from STS-2 flight data.

'RCS Ft-Lb

1

I I

, {-

I I I1

1111

'TOTAL Ft-Lb
...~ . .. . . -

I
0

I

I
20

IO

I 30

I
40
TI ME, sec

I

I
60

I
70

I
80

50

F i g u r e 5 . - Vehicle moments from STS-3 flight data,

408

- 25000
200000~

U

-

_-_
...
-

.. .

M~~~~~ Ft-Lb 0

- 200000 I%

-

-

--

_.

- 2 0 0 0 0 0 ~ -- -,, &,,, ,.r 0 10 20

-

70
80

30

40 50 TIME s e c

60

F i g u r e 6.- Vehicle moments from STS-5 flight data.

B

2

0

1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0
Time, sec

0

IO

20 30 40 50 60 70 60
Time, sec

F i g u r e 7.- STS-3 p r e s s u r e time h i s t o r i e s f o r v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s on t h e S h u t t l e v e r t i c a l t a i l .

409

E
Pressure, ps ia

7

UNDISTURBED LOCAL
PRFSSIIRF

\

0

IO

20

30 40 50
Time, sec

60 70 80

0

IO

20

30 40

50

60 70

80

Time, sec

Figure 8.- STS-5 pressure time histories f o r various locations on the Shuttle vertical tail.

I

I

3

4

r

i

aY

a

Y

6. I

6r

4

r =O
Figure 9

.- Vehicle

dynamics during "quarter hertz" motions.

410

- _-_
la1 MX-TOTAL USING f~ MEASURED
150000.r--

.-

.

... . . _

-150000.
(bl %-TOTAL

- USING

- -

. - -~

.

-_

FROM DIFFERENTIATED p

F i g u r e 10.- Comparison of a b o u t t h e X-body a x i s u s i n g two d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s o f b.

MTOTAL

2Dr

+ +

+ + + FLIGHT DATA

p,deglsec 0

Figure 11.- Maximum-likelihood f i t t o sideslip and r o l l rate f l i g h t data.

411

+ + 10.0 r

t i FLl GHT DATA CALCULATED

-4.0

1
0
2 4

-2.0

1
1 6 8 IO
2 ‘
4 12 14

6

8

IO

12

14

1 6

0

16

T I ME, sec

TI ME, sec

Figure 12.- Sideslip and roll attitude compatibility using roll rate, yaw rate, and lateral acceleration as known inputs to the v e h i c l e kinematic equations.

I
4 r

I

C

IO

20

30 40 50 Time, sec

60 70

80

Figure 13.- STS-2 pressure time histories for various l o c a t i o n s on the Shuttle vertical tail.

412

b

N84 1 0 1 3 3

-+.- ,

APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING THE EFFECT OF AEROELASTICITY ON

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER
D. C. Schlosser and D. F. Dominik Space Transportation and Systems Group Rockwell International Downey, California

SUMMARY
The s t a t i c a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s on t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y and elevon1 a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system (STS) Space S h u t t l e orbfiter were e s t i m a t e d by a s i m p l i f i e d approach c a l l e d t h e elevon t o r s i o n a l s t i f f nest3 (ETS) method. T h i s method employs r i g i d model wind tunnel t e s t r e s u l t s t o p r e d i c t a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s . L a t e r a l / d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and rudder e f f e c t i v e n e s s were based on r e s u l t s of a wind t u n n e l t e st i n which a f l e x i b l e t a i l model was used. Comparisons w i t h s e l e c t i v e f l i g h t d a t a are made i n t h i s paper. R e s u l t s of c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h f l i g h t d a t a (although l i m i t e d a t t h e p r e s e n t time) v e r i f y t h e predicted aeroelastic e f f e c t s f o r the orbiter. The o r b i t e r ' s s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e such t h a t t h e e f f e c t s of aeroe l a s t i c i t y , whether e s t i m a t e d u s i n g a n a l y t i c a l techniques o r s i m p l i f i e d methods, do n o t appear t o a f f e c t t h e v e h i c l e performance t o any g r e a t e x t e n t . The l a r g e amount of m a t t e r i n t h e f l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d d a t a made v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e a e r o e l a s t i c corr e c t i o n s very d i f f i c u l t . G e n e r a l l y , t h e s i m p l i f i e d elevon t o r s i o n a l s t i f f n e s s method provided b e t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h f l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s t h a n t h e a n a l y t i c a l method and reduced t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t and c o s t .

INTRODUCTION
The aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e STS o r b i t e r a r e i n f l u e n c e d by e l a s t i c defclnnation of t h e a i r f r a m e as i t is s u b j e c t e d t o a i r l o a d s . E a r l y i n the Space S h u t t l e program, a requirement was i d e n t i f i e d t o v e r i f y t h e s e a e r o e l a s t i c charact e r i s t i c s on t h e o r b i t e r and a s y s t e m a t i c approach was developed. A t t h e beginning of t h e program, t h e o r e t i c a l methods i n v o l v i n g Woodward panel l i f t i n g s u r f a c e calcul a t i o n s ( r e f . 1 ) were used t o p r e d i c t a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s on t h e o r b i t e r ' s aetodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These e a r l y a t t e m p t s a t p r e d i c t i n g t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s proved t o be c o s t l y , time consuming, and could only be v e r i f i e d by o t h e r a n a l y t i c a l methods; t h e r e f ore, s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s were conducted t o i s o l a t e major c o n t r i b u t o r s and thereby a i d i n understanding t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s . The c u r r e n t ETS method used t o e s t i m a t e t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l , e l e v a t o r / a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and elevon h i n g e moments evolved from these s t u d i e s .

413

The v e r t i c a l t a i l f i n was i s o l a t e d a s t h e major c o n t r i b u t o r t o a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s on l a t e r a l / d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and rudder e f f e c t i v e n e s s . It w a s considered necessary t o v e r i f y t h e e f f e c t s of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l a e r o e l a s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n by means of a f l e x i b l e - t a i l wind t u n n e l model because of t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e a n a l y t i c a l methods employed. T h i s paper p r e s e n t s a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e aforementioned a e r o e l a s t i c methods, which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e o r b i t e r aerodynamic d e s i g n d a t a base ( r e f . 2 ) . Comparisons a r e made w i t h s e l e c t i v e f l i g h t d a t a and v e r i f i c a t i o n problems w i t h f l i g h t d a t a a r e addressed.

SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER VEHICLE AEROELASTICITY
Configuration The Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s shown i n f i g u r e 1. The p r i n c i p a l components r e l a t i n g t o t h e a e r o e l a s t i c a n a l y s e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s paper a r e ident i f i e d and c o n t r o l s u r f a c e areas and maximum d e f l e c t i o n s a r e given. During a normal e n d - o f m i s s i o n e n t r y , t h e expected o p e r a t i n g envelope f o r dynamic p r e s s u r e i s 125 psf t o 300 p s f . A t high Mach numbers, dynamic p r e s s u r e diminishes t o z e r o ; t h e r e f o r e , a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s are a concern only when dynamic p r e s s u r e becomes s i g n i f i c a n t , i.e., i n t h e low supersonic and t r a n s o n i c Mach ranges. F1i g h t Environment The environment experienced by t h e o r b i t e r has been w e l l w i t h i n t h e expected o p e r a t i n g envelope. During f r e e - f l i g h t 4 (FF-41, dynamic p r e s s u r e was v a r i e d from 100 psf t o 300 psf i n t h e Mach 0.4 t o 0.5 range d u r i n g a push-over pull-up (PORI) maneuver. The o r b i t a l f l i g h t test (OFT) program was benign, w i t h a dynamic press u r e r e a c h i n g 225 psf n e a r Mach 3.0, decaying t o approximately 1 7 0 psf a t Mach 1.0. The f o u r f l i g h t s were v e r y similar w i t h dynamic p r e s s u r e e x c u r s i o n s of approxim a t e l y +35 psf or less. This r e p e a t a b i l i t y d i d n o t enhance t h e a b i l i t y t o correl a t e o r v e r i f y a e r o e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i n c e t h i s ,type of v e r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e s a g r e a t e r r a n g e of dynamic p r e s s u r e .

A e r o e l a s t i c Methodology

E a r l y s t u d i e s conducted t o d e f i n e t h e o r b i t e r v e h i c l e a e r o e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s used advanced l i n e a r theory, as p r e s e n t e d i n r e f e r e n c e 1. It was not considered necessary t o model f u s e l a g e volume and wing o r v e r t i c a l t a i l t h i c k n e s s because panel d e f l e c t i o n caused by aerodynamic loading i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e n e t load only. The o r b i t e r w a s p a n e l l e d (174 t o t a l p a n e l s ) a s shown i n f i g u r e 2. The s t a t i c i n f l u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t method,included aerodynamic and s t r u c t u r a l cross-coupling terms f o r a l l p a n e l s .

e
414

Long i t ud ina 1 The aeroelastic e f f e c t s on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics were calculated by:

where

(3)
{ a a } = Local panel angle of attack

(4)

W

B

T

-

Aerodynamic influence c o e f f i c i e n t matrix based on symmetric boundary conditions
W B
sWB

(5)

T
SWT

"
=

1

Structural influence c o e f f i c i e n t matrix based on symmetric boundary conditions Planform projection panel areas

[%-LONG-1

(7)

415

A t y p i c a l wing d e f l e c t i o n caused by elevon o r a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d The major p o r t i o n of t h e wing d e f l e c t i o n occurs s l i g h t l y ahead of t h e elevon hinge l i n e (FS 1387). To v e r i f y t h a t t h e wing was t h e p r i m a r y c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s , t h e S I C m a t r i x was p a r t i o n e d such t h a t v a r i o u s r e g i o n s of t h e wing could be s t i f f e n e d (wing box, elevon p a n e l s , and wing leading-edge r e i n f o r c e d carbon-carbon [RCC] p a n e l s ) by a f a c t o r of 1.5. R e s u l t s of t h e s e s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s a r e s u m a r i z e d i n t a b l e I i n terms of percentage change i n t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t . It was concluded from t h e s e r e s u l t s and t h e d e f l e c t i o n p a t t e r n shown i n f i g u r e 3 t h a t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l (and s i m i l a r l y t h e a i l e r o n ) chara c t e r i s t i c s could be r e l a t e d t o elevon d e f l e c t i o n under load and could, t h e r e f o r e , be expressed as a f u n c t i o n of t h e elevon hinge moment. This method was c a l l e d t h e ETS method.

in f i g u r e 3.

ETS Method

The math model f o r t h e ETS method i s presented i n f i g u r e 4 . This method assumes t h a t t h e elevon i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e wing by means of a s p r i n g having a cons t a n t , IC. A p p l i c a t i o n of a r i g i d hinge moment would cause t h e elevon t o d e f l e c t i n a manner t e n d i n g t o reduce t h e hinge moment. The corresponding change i n elevon d e f l e c t i o n r e s u l t s i n a change t o t h e aerodynamic load. The r e s u l t i n g f l e x i b l e elevon d e f l e c t i o n (@) can be used w i t h t h e r i g i d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o s o l v e d i r e c t l y €or t h e f l e x i b l e aerodynamics o r t o compute f l e x - t o - r i g i d r a t i o s by u s i n g both f l e x i b l e and r i g i d elevon d e f l e c t i o n s . Development and V e r i f i c a t i o n of Elevon Spring Constants The elevon s p r i n g c o n s t a n t s were f i r s t developed u s i n g t h e s t a t i c s t r u c t u r a l i n f l u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t matrix and a p p l y i n g a u n i t load on t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a n e l s t o determine d e f l e c t i o n a t a l l t h e panels. Analysis of t h e r e s u l t i n g d e f l e c t i o n s y i e l d e d t h e i n - and out-board s p r i n g c o n s t a n t s presented i n f i g u r e 5. The v a l u e of K i s dependent on t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e spanwise load because t h e elevon t o r s i o n a l load i s t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e wing through t h e a c t u a t o r . The v a l u e of K t o be used i n t h e ETS method is t h e v a l u e a t t h e a c t u a t o r s t a t i o n . The v a l u e s of K d e l i n e a t e d i n f i g u r e 5 were used t o p r e d i c t t h e e f f e c t s of a e r o e l a s t i c i t y . V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e s p r i n g c o n s t a n t s , which were developed by t h i s a n a l y t i c a l method, w a s obtained d u r i n g t h e s t r u c t u r a l test a r t i c l e (STA) l o a d i n g s performed on O r b i t e r 099 w i t h dummy a c t u a t o r s and t h e a c t u a l s t a t i c c a l i b r a t i o n s performed on O r b i t e r 101 d u r i n g c a l i b r a t i o n of t h e elevon d e f l e c t i o n w i t h a powered-up h y d r a u l i c system used d u r i n g t h e Approach and Landing Test (ALT) program. Comparison of R e s u l t s The d i f f e r e n c e between r e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y t i c a l method and t h e ETS method i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 6 and 7 a t a dynamic p r e s s u r e of 300 psf f o r t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The ETS method c o n s i s t e n t l y produced a lower v a l u e of t h e aeroe l a s t i c e f f e c t . A i l e r o n d e r i v a t i v e s are presented i n f i g u r e 8 , and again t h e ETS method produced lower a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s than t h e a n a l y t i c a l method.

416

To b e t t e r understand t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e a n a l y t i c a l method and t h e ETS method, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t h e o r e t i c a l r i g i d and f l e x i b l e normal f o r c e , p i t c h i n g moment, and elevon hinge moment was examined.
= 0 The f l e x i b l e elevon hinge moment ( f i g u r e 9 ) p i v o t s about t h e r i g i d p o i n t , i n d i c a t i n g t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o elevon load. S i m i l a r l y , t h e a e r o e l a s t i c p i t c h i n g moment increment changes s i g n a s elevon hinge moment passes through z e r o . A p p l i c a t i o n of t h e a n a l y t i c a l method r e s u l t s ( e . g . , AXac/F,nme) t o r i g i d experimental d a t a produces t h e r e s u l t s shown i n f i g u r e 10. The experimental d a t a had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower a b s o l u t e l e v e l and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p toFelevon h i n g e moment i s n o t maintained because of t h e l a r g e t h e o r e t i c a l A h o , AcLF, Achg, which i s being a p p l i e d . The ETS method i n t r i n s i c a l l y p r e s e r v e s t h e elevon hinge moment r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e corresponding a e r o e l a s t i c p i t c h i n g moment e f f e c t s , as shown i n f i g u r e 11. The r e d u c t i o n i n a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s by using t h e ETS method i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t with t h e s m a l l e r experimental aerodynamic l o a d i n g s .

La t e r a 1/ D i r ec t iona 1 The e f f e c t of a e r o e l a s t i c i t y on t h e l a t e r a l / d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was c a l c u l a t e d by:

where

{LF} =

same as l o n g i t u d i n a l e q u a t i o n ( 3 ) except based on asymmetric and antisymmetric boundary c o n d i t i o n s

{aR

}@=

l o c a l panel s i d e s l i p a n g l e

(12)

417

I''
'

= =

El s
[$*T-DIRJ

I

/same as longitudinal matrix, except based on asymmetric and antisymmetric boundary conditions

side-view projection panel areas

(13)

Based on the aeroelastic sensitivity studies conducted using the method just described, it was concluded that the majority of the aeroelastic losses in the lateralldirectional stability and rudder effectiveness parameters were coming from the fin portion of the vertical tail. Typical deflection patterns of the vertical tail caused by sideslip and rudder deflection are presented in figures 12 and 13. The fuselage and wing were small contributors and parametric stiffening studies of the aft fuselage, rudderispeed brake panels and actuators showed only minor changes in the aerodynamic losses caused by aeroelasticity. The results of these stiffening studies are summarized in table 11; therefore, it was concluded that only the fin portion of the vertical tail needed to be modeled. Flexible Vertical Tail Design and Verification Selection of the vertical tail structure to be modeled was based on the fact that the wind tunnel model could only be tested at a constant load factor; therefore, mass and inertia relief effects should not be included. A summary of the differences between a wind tunnel model and a full-scale flight vehicle is presented in figure 14; therefore, the vertical tail SIC matrix model selected for the wind tunnel model was the restrained or fixed SIC model. Because of the model scale selected (0.031, it was impossible t o attempt a structural replication of the full-scale structure and a simple beam model was selected. The steps taken to define and verify the test article prior t o wind tunnel testing are outlined in figure 15. Having selected the appropriate SIC matrix for the vertical tail design, the first step was to reduce the SIC matrix to a spanwise variation of bending stiffness (EI) and torsional stiffness (GJ) about an elastic axis (EA). The E1 and GJ specifications were used to design a simple beam model that would produce deflections matching those from the S I C matrix. A requirement also existed for the chordwise stiffness of the model to be equal t o o r greater than that of the full-scale orbiter. This requirement also applied to the rudderlspeed brake panels, although no attempt to model their flexibility was made. As the design of the model progressed, it became apparent that the model lacked chordwise stiffness and thus the chordwise stiffeners were added. Having produced a beam design representative of the full-scale vehicle, it then had to be scaled to model dimensions and wind tunnel dynamic pressures. The aeroelastic scaling laws utilized to reduce the full-scale beam to model scale are presented in the following equations:

418

thus

l

and i f a i r p l a n e and model a r e constructed of t h e same material

($)=E) =1.0
therefore

($)=

(z)

and

(5) (z)
=

S a t i s f a c t o r y t e s t i n g of an a e r o e l a s t i c model r e q u i r e s t h e s e l e c t i o n of wind tunnels t h a t have t h e c a p a b i l i t y of varying free-stream dynamic p r e s s u r e a t c o n s t a n t Mach numbers. The f a c i l i t i e s s e l e c t e d f o r t e s t i n g t h e o r b i t e r model had t h e c a p a b i l i t y of varying dynamic p r e s s u r e from 300 t o 900 psf over a Mach range of 0.6 t o 3 . 5 . A i i , l q ~r a t i o of 3.0 was used i n t h e s c a l i n g equations so t h a t a t a wind t u n n e l f r e e s t r e a m dynamic p r e s s u r e of 900 psf t h e model d e f l e c t i o n s would correspond t o f u l l s c a l e d e f l e c t i o n s a t a dynamic p r e s s u r e of 300 p s f . A f t e r t h e model was designed and b u i l t , i t was necessary t o c a l i b r a t e and t u n e it t o the d e s i r e d E1 and GJ d i s tributions. The d e s i g n requirements f o r E1 and G J and the as-measured v a l u e s a r e g i v e n i n f i g u r e 16. C a l i b r a t i o n s were made w i t h t h e rudderlapeed b r a k e panels a t t a c h e d . No d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e c a l i b r a t i o n were observed because of speed brake angle (i-e., 25 o r 55 d e g r e e s ) . The beam of t h e model had t o be extended 0.90 i n c h below t h e f u s e l a g e o u t e r moldline (OML) i n o r d e r t o match r o o t d e f l e c t i o n s r e s u l t ing from t h e a f t f u s e l a g e f l e x i b i l i t y . The c a l i b r a t i o n was t h e f i r s t s t e p toward v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e t a i l d e s i g n . A d d i t i o n a l s t e p s i n v e r i f y i n g t h e model t a i l d e s i g n were done a n a l y t i c a l l y . Firsi:, t h e t a i l geometry was modeled i n t h e NASTRAN (ref. 3 ) program and an SIC matrfix was g e n e r a t e d f o r t h e a s - b u i l t t a i l . Secondly, t h e a s - b u i l t SIC matrix was reduced t o E1 and G J by t h e same procedure used t o reduce t h e d e s i g n t o SIC m a t r i x . These checks c o n s t i t u t e d t h e s t a t i c v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e f l e x i b l e v e r t i c a l t a i l model d e s i g n p r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e rubber c o a t i n g on t h e beam, which gave t h e t a i l an a i r f o i l shape. No a t t e m p t was made t o v e r i f y t h e e f f e c t of t h e rubber coating p r i o r t o testing.

419

An a d d i t i o n a l requirement f o r a f l u t t e r a n a l y s i s w a s imposed on t h e f l e x i b l e t a i l model t o ensure t h a t i t would be f r e e of any s i g n i f i c a n t dynamic l o a d i n g s because a t maximum d e s i g n l o a d s a f a c t o r of s a f e t y of 5 . 0 could not be demonstrat e d . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f i r s t divergence occurred i n t h e second bending mode a t a speed of approximately 1000 knots. This was e q u i v a l e n t t o a wind tunnel dynamic p r e s s u r e of 2000 p s f , w e l l above t h e a n t i c i p a t e d maximum d u r i n g t h e t e s t pro gram. A d d i t i o n a l s t a t i c c a l i b r a t i o n s of t h e t a i l have been conducted s i n c e t h e comp l e t i o n of t h e wind t u n n e l tests. The f l e x i b l e t a i l model was s t a t i c a l l y loaded i n l o c a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e used on t h e STA and t h e corresponding d e f l e c t i o n s were measured. These load p o i n t s and d e f l e c t i o n measurement p o i n t s are i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 1 7 . Two t y p e s of l o a d i n g s were made a t load p o i n t s 2 1 , 2 2 , and 2 3 . I n s t e a d of l o a d i n g a t a s i n g l e p o i n t , a p l a t e , a s o u t l i n e d on t h e f i g u r e , was used t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e load s i m i l a r t o t h e STA, which was not loaded a t a s i n g l e load p o i n t . D e f l e c t i o n s a t load p o i n t s 2 2 and 23 showed l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e because of t h e method of l o a d i n g ; t h e r e f o r e , a s i n g l e load p o i n t was used f o r loading p o i n t s 2 4 , 2 5 , and 2 6 . Comparisons of t h e STA r e s u l t s and t h e wind t u n n e l model ( s c a l e d t o f u l l s c a l e ) a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 18 through 2 3 . Again, i t was concluded t h a t t h e f l e x i b l e - t a i l model was a n e x c e l l e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a c t u a l O r b i t e r 102 vertical tail.
From t h e e x t e n s i v e p r e - t e s t d e s i g n and p r e - and p o s t - t e s t v e r i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t s , i t c a n be c o n c l u d e d t h a t the o r b i t e r f l e x i b l e t a i l model used d u r i n g t h e o r b i t e r

a e r o e l a s t i c v e r i f i c a t i o n t e s t program w i l l produce r e s u l t s t h a t can be used t o v e r i f y a n a l y t i c a l methods and/or be used t o e s t i m a t e o r b i t e r f u l l - s c a l e a e r o e l a s t i c characteristics.
Ames Research Center (ARC) and

The f l e x i b l e t a i l model underwent e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g i n t h e NASA A i r Force Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) f a c i l i t i e s . Analysis of t h e s e d a t a forms t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c u r r e n t l a t e r a l f d i r e c t i o n a l a e r o e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The f l e x i b l e - t a i l wind t u n n e l t e s t program and t h e Machldynamic p r e s s u r e range of t h e f a c i l i t i e s used a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 24. Comparison of R e s u l t s Comparisons between t h e a n a l y t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s and t h e r e s u l t s of t h e f l e x i b l e t a i l wind t u n n e l t e s t program ( a t a dynamic p r e s s u r e of 300 p s f ) are given i n f i g u r e s 25 and 26. S i d e s l i p d e r i v a t i v e f l e x - t o - r i g i d r a t i o s show a l a r g e r l o s s caused by a e r o e l a s t i c i t y t h a n t h e a n a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s d o . Rudder d e r i v a t i v e s are i n c l o s e agreement. AS s t a t e d e a r l i e r , i t is believed t h e a n a l y t i c a l method i s d e f i c i e n t i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e v e r t i c a l - t a i l flow f i e l d because of s i d e s l i p a n g l e , thereby causing t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e s i d e s l i p e f f e c t s . The rudder e f f e c t was analyzed a t z e r o s i d e s l i p and i s l e s s dependent upon t h e l o c a l flow f i e l d , r e s u l t i n g i n c l o s e r agreement.

420

C o r r e l a t i o n with F l i g h t Test R e s u l t s The o r b i t e r aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e being v e r i f i e d i n two ways. The low-speed aerodynamics were v e r i f i e d during t h e ALT phase using O r b i t e r 101 and t h e p r e s e n t high-speed v e r i f i c a t i o n i s being conducted u s i n g Orbiter 102 d u r i n g t h e OFT program. F l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s from t h e ALT and f i r s t f o u r f l i g h t s of t h e OFT programs a r e p r e s e n t e d . SpeciTwo ALT f l i g h t s were conducted with t h e t a i l c o n e o f f , FF-4 and FF-5. f i c tsaneuvers were performed t o e x t r a c t t h e low-speed aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A POPU maneuver during FF-4 provided an a n g l e of a t t a c k v a r i a t i o n from 3 t o 15 degrees and, simultaneously, dynamic p r e s s u r e v a r i e d from 300 t o 100 p s f . Since t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s a r e a f u n c t i o n of dynamic p r e s s u r e , t h i s maneuver provided t h e dynamic p r e s s u r e change necessary t o c o r r e l a t e t h e aeroe l a s t i c methods. Assuming t h a t t h e r i g i d e f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k could be pred i c t e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e accuracy through the use of wind tunnel test d a t a , t h e effec:t of a e r o e l a s t i c i t y a t low dynamic p r e s s u r e should be small. I t should be l a r g e a t h i g h dynamic pressures. The a e r o e l a s t i c methods can be compared by p l o t t i n g elevon d e f l e c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o t r i m as a f u n c t i o n of trimmed l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t The t h e o r e t i c a l e f f e c t of a e r o e l a s t i c i t y on elevon d e f l e c t i o n ( f i g u r e 27). r e q u i r e d t o t r i m does n o t c o r r e l a t e w i t h t h e f l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s a s w e l l as t h e ETS method o r t h e r i g i d d a t a . The l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e theor e t i c a l d a t a i s caused by t h e h0 and cLo increments. The ETS method e s t i m a t e d t h e s e increments t o be much smaller. Elevon and a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s (cNde, and Cn6a, and were e x t r a c t e d d u r i n g t h e ALT program and are presented i n f i g u r e s 28 and 2 9 . E i t h e r a e r o e l a s t i c method could adequately p r e d i c t t h e s e d e r i v a t i v e s . The p r e f l i g h t u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r which t h e v e h i c l e was s t r e s s - t e s t e d a r e shown on t h e right-hand s i d e of t h e s e f i g u r e s . The e f f e c t of a e r o e l a s t i c i t y i s only a f r a c t i o n of t h e t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y and n o t c r i t i c a l t o low-speed handling q u a l i t i e s . It was c l e a r l y and cLo) e v i d e n t t h a t the method of applying t h e o r e t i c a l a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s (h0 was producing t o o l a r g e a n e f f e c t a t t h e conclusion of t h e ALT program. The ETS method provided a more reasonable e f f e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , i t was t h e method used t o d e r i v e t h e O r b i t e r 102 a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s .
The c o r r e l a t i o n of the sideslip and rudder derivatives with ALT f l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s a r e presented i n f i g u r e s 30 and 31. The r i g i d results and the t h e o r e t i c a l method produce about t h e same a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t for t h e s i d e s l i d e r i v a t i v e w h i l e t h e wind t u n n e l r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a l a r g e loss. The d e r i v a t i v e , &@, does appear t o be more a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by t h e wind tunnel r e s u l t s than by theory. The d e s i g n u n c e r t a i n t y is i n d i c a t e d on t h e right-hand s i d e of t h e f i g u r e and e i t h e r method of estim.ating a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s on t h e s i d e s l i p d e r i v a t i v e s i s w e l l w i t h i n t h e design-to u n c e r t a i n t y .

c

:Rudder e f f e c t i v e n e s s is n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e e s t i m a t i n g technique a s much as t h e s i d e s l i p d e r i v a t i v e s . The a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s on cQ approach t h e p r e f l i g h t u n c e r t a i n t y a t h i g h dynamic p r e s s u r e and had t o be accou%ed f o r . 'It was concluded from t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s t h a t t h e ETS method d i d provide b e t t e r agreement i n l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e s i d e s l i p and rudder d e r i v a t i v e s , d e r i v e d from t h e f l e x t a i l wind tunnel t e s t program, should be used f o r t h e OYT program planning.

42 1

OFT Results (STS-1 Through STS-4)
During a normal end-ofmission entry, aeroelastic effects do not become significant until Mach 5 is reached and dynamic pressure has increased to approximately 200 psf. Angle of attack, dynamic pressure, elevon deflection, and center of gravity location have not differed significantly (figure 32) during the first four STS flights. The majority of trajectory differences and dispersions have occurred at Mach numbers less than 1 0 . . The speed brake schedule has been the same and body flap deflection does not influence the ETS method. The dynamic pressure was reduced to 150 psf and the elevon scheduled near zero hinge moment in the transonic Mach range, thus providing maximum control surface deflection rate capability. These conditions also combine to produce negligible aeroelastic effects in the transonic Mach number range. In the Mach 5 to 2 region, dynamic pressure was 180 psf or more and the elevon hinge moments were allowed t o increase as the elevon schedule was controlled to optimize the yawing moment derivative, C g . n, The flight test results from STS-2 have been selected to illustrate the elevon hinge moment (figure 33) and longitudinal aerodynamic (figure 3 4 ) correlation. The differences between flexible and rigid prediction are very small; the largest aeroelastic correction appears in pitching moment. The increments (flight minus predicted) for both flexible and rigid estimates (figure 35) are within preflight uncertainties in the Mach 5 to 2 region, with the flexible estimate minutely better. The flight increments are much larger than the flex-to-rigid increments and obscure any effort to verify the longitudinal aeroelastic effects. Lateral/directional flight-minus-predicted increments for the aileron, rudder, and sideslip derivatives are summarized in figures 36 through 38. These derivatives are extracted from programmed test inputs ( P T I ) or bank reversal motion time histories recorded during the entry flight phase. There were no P T I ' s during STS-1; therefore, only data from STS-2 through STS-4 are presented. Again, the flight-minus-predicted increments greatly exceed the aeroelastic increment and the data scatter precludes verification of the 1ateralJdirectional aeroelastic effects. CONCLUDING REMARKS The orbiter structural characteristics and entry dynamic pressure profile result in minimal aeroelastic effects relative to preflight design-to ancertainties and flight test measurement accuracies. The required fidelity of the aeroelastic analysis should consider these uncertainties in addition to flight control system sen6i t ivity requirements. Theoretical analysis was used to understand the relationship between flexible and rigid aerodynamic characteristics, including resulting aeroelastic defonnations. This resulted in a simplified aeroelastic estimation procedure (ETS method), which utilized the high-fidelity, experimentally derived aerodynamic characteristics. Theoretical analysis also initiated the flexible vertical tail wind tunnel test program and supported the simplified flexible tail design approach. Step-bystep coordination of model design requirements, fabrication, and verification produced a quality test article.

422

V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s has been d i f f i c u l t w i t h t h e c u r r e n t f l i g h t t e s t program r e s u l t s and l i m i t e d t r a j e c t o r y d i s p e r s i o n s i n dynamic p r e s s u r e .

SYMBOLS
aerodynamic c e n t e r r e f e r e n c e wing span, i n . mean aerodynamic chord, i n . axial force coefficient drag c o e f f i c i e n t l i f t coefficient normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t side force coefficient hinge moment c o e f f i c i e n t r o l l i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t yawing moment c o e f f i c i e n t s p r i n g c o n s t a n t , deg/in.-lb dynamic p r e s s u r e , l b / f t 2 r e f e r e n c e wing a r e a , f t 2 a n g l e of a t t a c k , deg angle of s i d e s l i p , deg increment c o n t r o l s u r f a c e d e f l e c t i o n , deg flex-to-rigid
row vector

ratio

column v e c t o r r e c t a n g u l a r o r square m a t r i x Subscripts

a
bf
e

aileron

body f l a p
e levon

r sb
0

rudder speed brake z e r o a n g l e of a t t a c k ,

a= 0

423

B
T

body

tail
wing lateral/directional longitudinal Superscript 6

W
LAT-DIR LONG

F R

f 1e x i b l e

rigid Acronyms

ADDB AEDC
ARC
CG

Aerodynamic Design Data Book (ref. 2) Arnold Engineering Development Center

A e Research Center ms c e n t e r of g r a v i t y
elastic axis bending s t i f f n e s s parameter elevon t o r s i o n a l s t i f f n e s s f ree-f l i g h t t o r s i o n a l s t i f f n e s s parameter National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s

EA

E1
ETS FF

GJ

NASA
NASTRAN
0FT

o r b i t a l f l i g h t test o u t e r moldline push- over pull-up
lb/ft2

I

OML

POPU
P Sf

PTI
RCC

programmed t e s t i n p u t s r e i n f o r c e d carbon-carbon s t r u c t u r a l influence c o e f f i c i e n t s t r u c t u r a l test a r t i c l e
Space Transportation System

sI C
STA
STS

4 24

REFERENCES

1.
2.

Bonner, E.; Clever, W . ; and Dunn, K . : Aerodynamic Preliminary Analysis Theory. NASA CR-165626, Apr. 1981. System 11, Part I

-

Aerodynamic Design Data Book (Volume I) Orbiter Vehicle, STS-1. SD 72-SH-0060-1M, Rockwell International, Space Transportation Integration and Operations D i v i s i o n , Downey, California, Nov. 1980.
NASTRAN

:3.

NASA Structural Analysis System (CDC Version). COSMIC, University o f Georgia.

-

HQN-10952,

425

TABLE I.- EVALUATION OF STIFFENED WING/ELEVON STUDY

Region Stiffened Wing Inboard elevon Outboard elevon Wing leading edge

I

Rigid actuators

TABLE 11.- EVALUATION OF STIFFENED VERTICAL T A I L STUDY

Region Stiffened Fin Rudder/ pane l e

C"B
26

c!?
26

(%I

crf

C %"?R

C k ,

(%I
29
<2 <2

29
< 2
< 2

-3

-6

e

A f t fuselage
Rigid actuators

-

--

< 1

<1

426

COMPONENT GEOMETRY
I

WING
I

VERTICAL TAIL
315.72 IN. 1.875 0.404 45 DEG 199.81 IN.

I

I

AREA ASPECT RATIO TAPER RATIO SWEEP L E . DIHEDRAL INCIDENCE M*C

I 2690.00 FT'

1

I

I
I

936.68 IN. 2.265 0.20 81145 DEG 3.5 DEG 0.5 DEG 474.81 IN.

I 413.25 FT'

I

I

CONTROL SURFACE

AREA FT')
208.570 135.750 97.148 97.148

MAX DEFLECTION (DW
-11.7 TO +22.5 0 TO 87.2 -22.8 TO +22.8

ELEVON (1 SIDE) BODY FLAP SPEED BRAKE RUDDER

Figure 1.- Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r configuration.

(TAIL (FUSELAGE = 30 PANELS)

= 48 PANELS)

'

Figure 2 . - Orbiter v e h i c l e paneling.

427

M = 0.9

Sa = I O o

q

= 288 psf

1.-

HL
1400
0

1500

i
400

500

600
X

700

800

900

-

FUSELAGE STATION (IN.)

500
400

-

300

200 -

o
200

=
I

400

I 600

I

I

I

I

1
1600

800
X

1000

1200

1400

Figure 3.- Wing d e f l e c t i o n caused by elevon deflection.

SUBSTITUTE (2) AND (3) INTO (1)

F i g u r e 4 . - Elevon torsional stiffness math model.
428

0wGfp;jq. ' 3 3
OF POW?

c*j;':l.i:-<

I . !

ML

Q OV-101 CALIBRATION

20

16
12

KO RADIIN.-LB
x 101

8
4

0
147.5 21 2
282 312 5 342.5 387

s

435

SPAN STATION, YO (IN.)

Figure 5.- Elevon hinge/actuator arrangement.

F
ACLB
--

C?" 0.9

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8 2

4

0.2

0.6

Mach

1.0 1.4 Mach

1.6 2

4

0.2

0.6

Mach 1.0 1.4

Mach
1.8 2

-0.01

ACm0
-0.02

F

\
-0.03

\ /
V

/
-3

Figure 6.- Comparison of aeroelastic methods on lift and pitching moment.
4 29

MACH

MACH

1.o

0.90

'Im

e-

'HMe,
0.8

085

-

\
\ I

/
f

\ /
0.2
0.6
1.0 14
1.8 2
4

0.80

I

1

0.7

MACH

0.75

MACH

Figure 7.- Comparison of aeroelastic methods on elevon effectiveness and hinge moments.

0.71 1.Or

0.2

'

I

0.6

I U 1 1.0 1.4

I 1.8

I

I

2

4

mcn

0.71

0.2

'

I

0.6

I 1.0

1 1.4

I 1.8

I

2

I 4

1.0r

MACH

-4
0.7

= 300 pSf PRESENT THEORY

MACH

Figure 8.- Comparison of aeroelastic methods on aileron derivatives.
430

20

THEORETICAL AERO M - 0.9 4 = 288 PSF

-----

RIGID FLEX

Figure 9.- Relationship between theoretical rigid and flexible aerodynamics.

1.6

-20

I

-0.1

-0.2

I

1

I -0.3

4.4

I

-10

cm 0.65 Lg

M = 0.9

-

---

9 = 288

PSF

RIGID FLEX(THE0RY)

v

I

/ t F

s

-1.2

1
43 1

F i g u r e 10.- Rigid and flexible aerodynamics using theoretical results.

MAY 1980 ADB M = 0.9 q = 288 PSF he

O.*

T

- --

RIGID FLEX (ETS)

10

t
0.4

-0.1

I

-0.2

-0.3

0.4

I

‘m0.65 LB

CR = 0 he
-1.2

1

Figure 11.- Rigid and f l e x i b l e aerodynarnlcs using elevon

torsional stiffness method.

M = 0.9
@ = -100

z
q
=

-

797

288 PSF

1900

HL

2 797

2 -

= 753

800

700

60:
5 4 0 7

600

Z - 703

-

500
400

0

/

2 :540
I I

1300

1400

1500

1600

1 1700

X-FUSELAGE STATION (IN.)

Figure 12.- Vertical t a i l deflection caused by sideslip loading.
432

2

0
1
1700

-2

-4

AY
I

IN.)
-6

-8

I
1000

1 1200

I 1400
X (IN.)

I 1600

200

F i g u r e 13.- V e r t i c a l t a i l d e f l e c t i o n caused by r u d d e r l o a d i n g .

MODEL
MODEL HAS ONLY PARTIAL FLEXIBILITY RIGID WINGIBODV. FLEX TAIL LOAD FACTOR IS CONSTANT 11.0 GI HAS AERODYNAMIC COUPLING
HAS N O STRUCTURAL C,OUPLlNG

AERODYNAMIC DESIGN DATA BOOK
ORBITER IS COMPLETELY FLEXIBLE (FREE-FREE SYSTEM) LOAD FACTOR VARIES, HAS 1NERI.A RELIEF INCLUDED HAS AERODYNAMIC COUPLING
HAS STRUCTURAL COUPLING
W E T

W

I

T

W

I

T

s s ss s s
s s s

F i g u r e 14.- D i f f e r e n c e s between model and o r b i t e r .

433

FLUTTERlAEROELASTlClTY SUPPLIED FIXED SIC MATRIX FOR TAIL, HAS STRUCTURAL COUPLING

VERIFY SIC MATRIX

REDUCE SIC MATRIX TO SIMPLE BEAM I El. Q J '
I
I

MODEL AS-BUILT TAIL IN NASTRAN AND QENERATE SIC MATRIX (FULL SCALE)
I

REDUCENASTRAN SIC TO El, GJ TO VERIFY NASTRAN ANALYSIS

'

SCALE El. GJ FOR MODEL SCALE AND DYNAMIC PRESSURE DESIGN AND BUILD MODEL

FLUTTER ANALYSIS (SIX MODES)

REQUIRED FOR WIND TUNNEL

n

CALIBRATE TAIL TO VERIFY El, GJ

1 I

1

GROUND VIBRATION TEST (FIVE MODES)

Figure 15.- Model design process and v e r i f i c a t i o n .

0

PRIMARY STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO PRODUCE DESIRED El. GJ CHORDWISE STIFFENSERS ADDED TO MATCH CHORDWISE STIFFNESS
0

0

W

0.05

OJ2 0 0.01

-\ iLu2-u2 4

6

8

1 0 1 2

5 4

4

EA STATION (IN.)
BEAM BASE OMEASURED DATA ONASTRAN MODEL

I's"F

-

0-05t
0.02 0.01

0

I

2

I

I

I

I

I

4

6 8 1 0 EA STATION (IN.)

1

I 2

Figure 16.- Model design v e r i f i c a t i o n .

434

2!

EIGHT GAUGE

24

21

22

21

20

19

A LDAMNQ LOCATIONS
0

17

DEFLECTION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

Figure 1 7 . - D i s t r i b u t e d l o a d i n g l o c a t i o n s .

a
LOAD POINT 23 LOAD NO. 542 LOAD = 2.400LB Xo = 1560.3

z,
IN.

= 735.3

1.2

T

0 STA RESULTS 0 MODEL POINT LOAD

C, MODEL

- DISTRIBUTION LOAD
0.1)

Figure 18.- Deflections caused by loading p o i n t 23.

435

STA RESULTS MODEL POINT LOAD MODEL DISTRIBUTION LOAD

-

LOAD 3.000 LB Xo 1616.8 2, - 309.7

I

I

I

I
0

I

I

I

-60

-40

-20

20 40 DISTANCE FROM EA (IN.)

60

I 80

1 100

Figure 19.- Deflections caused by loading p o i n t 21.

A Y IN.
1.2

LOAD POINT 24 LOADNO 552 LOAD 5.000 LB

x,

1501.0
~

Z,

673.2

0 MODEL

- POINT LOAD

I

-60

1

I -40

-20

I

0

I

I

20

I 40

I

1

I
100
'

60

80

DISTANCE FROM EA (IN.)

Figure 20.- Deflections caused by loading point 2 4 .

436

AY

~

IN.

0 STA RESULTS

LOAD POINT 22 LOAD NO. 662 LOAD = 3,000 LB
Xo
1564.8

A MODEL

- DISTRIBUTED LOAD
0.8

20 = 621.0

1

A

-= I
I

-

c=-*---33
I

I

I -20
0

1

1

-60

-40

20 DISTANCE FROM EA (IN.)

40

I 60

I

I
100

80

Figure 21.-

Deflections caused by loading point 2 2 .

LOAD POINT 25 LOAD NO. 572 LOAD = 12,000 LB
X, z 1445.2 2, - 621.0

L
-60

I

-40

1 -20

1
0

I

20

I 40

I 60

I 80

I
100

DISTANCE FROM EA (IN.)

Figure 22.- Deflections caused by loading p o i n t 25.

437

AY

I

IN. 1.2

LOAD POINT 26 LOAD NO. 582 LOAD - 14,000 LE X, z 1394.1 2 , 551.5

1 .o

0 STA

0 MODEL - POINT LOAD

RESULTS

0.B

0.6

I -60

I -40

I

-20

I 20

I

1

40

60

80

100

DISTANCE FROM EA (IN.)

Figure 23.- D e f l e c t i o n s caused by l o a d i n g p o i n t 26.

TEST NO.
OA-l26A 01.1268 OA.126C OA-129 01.400

OBJECTIVE
AEROELASTIC STABILITY 6 CONTROL AEROELASTIC STABILITY 6 CONTROL AEROELASTIC STABILITY 6 CONTROL AEROELASTIC STABILITY 6 CONTROL AEROELASTIC STABILITY 6 CONTROL

FACILITY
ARC 1 1 FT ARC 9x7 FT ARC 8 x 7 FT AEDC 1 6 1 ARC 11 FT

DOCUMENTATION
D M SD R- ~~~~ DMSDR-2424 DMS-DR-2447 DMS-DR-2434 DMS-OR-2482

U

Y

2.000

T

P1 0

1.600 9 FT X 7 FT 1.200

!IwE

-

~

MODEL 900

VEHICLE 300

BOO

0

4 0 0 1

300
0

100

OC
I
0.4

I
0.e

I
1.2

1
1.6 MACH

I
2.0

1
2.4

I
2.11

1
3.2

1
3.6

F i g u r e 2 4 . - Flexible t a i l wind t u n n e l t e s t program.

rl

yOw

.

O?-

0.4

0.2

06 .

10 .

14 .
MACH

18 2 .

4

'----#

*e--

BV

0.6

4 = 300 PSF

PRESENT THEORY

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8 2

4

MACH

Figure 25.- Comparison of aeroelastic methods on vertical tail component sideslip.

0.4

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8 2

4

MACH

0.41
1.Or

0.2

0.6

I

I 1.0

1.4

I

1.8 2

I

I

4

I

MACH

q = 300 psf
I)

PRESENT

0.6

THEORY

0.4'

02 .

'

0.6

I

I 1.0

1.4 1.8 2 MACH

I

I

I

4

I

Figure 26.- Comparison of aeroelastic methods on rudder derivatives.
439

d 0

&Me

*&

FLEX ADDB

T

300

100 q-PSF

Figure 27.- ALT longitudinal trim characteristics.

__--_CN

FLEX ADD6 THEORY

-_--____---------- _ - . _____
be
0 2 4
6

PREFLIGHT
UNCERTAINTY

o.olL-u-8
10 12
ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG) -0.004

t
0 2

2 :
4

0

6

B

10

12 3

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG)

Figure 28.- ALT elevon effectiveness.

440

0.012

0.008
cybR
0.004

1
; i
2
I

---I
RIDID ADD6

FLEX ADDB _---- THEORY

PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

0'

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG)

: c

lb

1 :

4.002

-0.001

01

0.0012

r

0.004

c

293 268

Figure 31.- ALT rudder stability derivative results.

LEQENO

,o,oo

;- - sir,
c-----*
STP1
4

STS2 STSI

--

,
"CG

aw.00

t

a

!
1
!
0.655

100.00

0.00

2.00
MACH NO.

4.00

Figure 32.- STS-1 through STS-4 t r a j e c t o r y p a r a m e t e r s .

44 2

@-

cn6R

i

3- - _-I
1

---__
*
I

6 B 1 0 1 2 ANGLE OF ATTACK IDEG)
4

,

fI

PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

200

(08

6

-

PSI

16.00

7

-2.0

I
0.180

I
0,085 0.870
0.673

6.00

0.650

I CENTER OF ORAVITY I % 0 0 D V LENGTH)

0.004

o.oo8r
0
O t
0

*
1 2

PREFLIGMT UNCERTAINTY

CY.

O'

a004

0.002

0.OOlC

c
I

2

4 6 8 ANGLE OF ATTACK IDEG)

t

o

~

--

T

4.001
0.006
0

FLEXAODB
THEORY

0.004

cf

h.
0.002

'0

t1 ,

r

2

I

I
4

I
6

1
8

I

1 0 1 2

I

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG)

-' , 2 r

*
l,Y

PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

I 293 268I , 2 4

6 8 ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEC)

,

10

12

3-

PSF

Figure 29.- ALT aileron stability derivative results.

B

4.02
4.01

t
0

RIGID ADDB FLEX ADDB THEORY PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

O -

O
2 4

L

6

8

1 0 1 2

0.003 0.002
C"

r
0

ANGLE OF ATTACU IDEO)

0.001

UNCERTAINTY

-0.003

-0.001

.o.oo21
2
4

6

8

1

0

1

2

r

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG)

UNCERTAINTY

0

0

2

4

6

8

1 0 1 2

ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEG)

Figure 30.- ALT s i d e s l i p stability derivative results.

44 1

+ FLIGHT 7 FLEX ADDB I-----RIGID ADDE

e.-. -

LEGEND

__

0 100

0.100

0.000

0.000

L

ch *IR
-0.100
-0.100

-0.200 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

.0.200 0.00
0.025

2.00

4.00

6.00

0.025 t

MACH NO.

1

1

[

MACH NO.

1

1

1

0 000

0.000

cn.oLo 025
-0 050

Ch,
OR

.OD25

-0 0.50

0 075
0.00

-0 075 2.00 MACM NO.
4.00

6 00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

MACU NO.

F i g u r e 33.- STS-2 e l e v o n hinge moments (flight v e r s u s p r e d i c t e d ) .

0.600

'

LEGEND FLEX ADD0

c . - - - . - l FLIGHT
+----I RIGID ADD0

0.000

-0.020
CL 0.400

cm
-0.040

0.200 0.00

2.00

4.00 MACH NO.

6.00

-0.080 0 00

2.00

4.00

6.00

0.300

B.000

,

MACH NO.

4.000

LID 2.000

0.wo-

'

.
2.00

.

'

'

'

0.00

4.00

6.00

0.000 0.00

2.00

4.00

0.00

MACH NO.

MACH NO.

Figure 3 4 . - STS-2 longitudinal aerodynamics (flight versus predicted).

443

Figure 35.- STS-2 longitudinal aerodynamics (flight minus predicted).

LEGEND

0 FLEXADD0

0.0010

.

,-----,
0
L.
...

0

RIGID A w 8

+---4 VARIATION
IOLERANCE}

PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

-.'.

-. __.

- - - - - - -.__ .......

Cn

0.0000

6.
_ /

a
.*.-

_.

/

__--

- -. . r .... . . . . . .a m -._ _ - - - - -.8

...*

- - - .. - - - - - - - -

-

.

e

0 -.

0
..

e
0

---

Q O O l O ~ '
D.0010

.

e . -. - -.

-.. . . . . . .- - . .

-

-

ow00

'

0

L e Q .... C .e %* . e . . 0 .............. " ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - - - -. - - -..- - -.- ..-.- - - - - - . . - -- . - - - -.
-1-

.-- ..............

__ - - -

,

-

.

--

*

,

*'-

0.0010~

.

.- .I

. . .

.

.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MACH NO.

Figure 36.- Flight minus predicted aileron derivatives.

e

444

LEGEND

0 FLEY ADD0
0 RIGID ADDE

0.0010

, -~,
4

VARIATION PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

__

n'

4

0.0~0

n nnqn ._
0.10 0 0010

1.w

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

MACH NO

--_
c%,
0.0000

-

-3 Do10 0 50

1 00

150

200

250

3W MACH NO

350

400

450

s.00

Figure 37.- Flight minus predicted rudder derivatives.

LEGEND

0

ADD0

0 RIGID

I-- 4
-

__,

VARIATION TOLERANCE) PREFLIGHT UNCERTAINTY

0.50

'

1.00

1.so

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Figure 38.- Flight minus predicted sideslip derivatives.

445

MINIMUM TESTING OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER FOR STABILITY AND CONTROL DERIVATIVES
Douglas R. Cooke Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX SUMMARY A unique approach has been developed €or stability and control derivative testing of the Space Shuttle orbiter during entry. Shuttle Program requirements have necessitated a minimum of testing. Therefore, flight tests concentrate on potential control problem areas predicted from wind tunnel data as well as anomalies discovered during flight testing. The object is to use the test data to remove center of gravity (cg), angle of attack, and elevon placards which are a function of these potential control problems. To ensure successful aerodynamic extraction from a minimum of testing, the following special measures have been taken. Exact maneuvers are designed preflight on Shuttle simulators. These maneuvers are duplicated and implemented during the flight by onboard software. An onboard instrumentation system was designed especially for aerodynamic parameter identification. State-of-the-art techniques are used in extracting aerodynamics. The 17 flight test schedule is designed for a minimum number of maneuvers t o provide stability and control data over the Shuttle operational ranges of expected angles of attack, elevon deflection, and cg location. Where differences between wind tunnel and flight data occur, aerodynamic coefficient deltas are provided to simulators, which verify the safety of upcoming flights. The status of this test plan and results from accomplished testing are presented in this paper. NOMENCLATURE

e

A
An Ax AY C

Amplitude, deg/sec or g ' s Normal acceleration, gs ' Axial acceleration, gs ' Lateral acceleration, gs ' Coefficient of roll due to sideslip, per deg Coefficient of roll due to aileron deflection, per deg

C
C

%a %r

Coefficient of roll due to rudder deflection, per deg

447

C o e f f i c i e n t o f yaw d u e t o s i d e s l i p , p e r d e g
C

C o e f f i c i e n t o f yaw d u e t o a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n , p e r d e g "6 a C o e f f i c i e n t of yaw d u e t o r u d d e r d e f l e c t i o n , p e r d e g

C

"6
C

n6
'm

e

C o e f f i c i e n t of n o r m a l f o r c e d u e t o e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n , p e r deg P i t c h i n g moment P i t c h i n g moment a t z e r o a n g l e o f a t t a c k

'm
C

0

m6
C

BF

C o e f f i c i e n t o f p i t c h i n g moment d u e t o b o d y f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , p e r deg C o e f f i c i e n t o f p i t c h i n g moment d u e t o e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n , p e r deg C o e f f i c i e n t of p i t c h i n g moment d u e t o a n g l e of a t t a c k , per deg C o e f f i c i e n t of s i d e f o r c e due t o s i d e s l i p , p e r d e g
Coefficient
of s i d e f o r c e d u e t o a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n ,

m 6e
C

ma
L3

cy

6a

per d e g

C o e f f i c i e n t of s i d e f o r c e d u e t o r u d d e r d e f l e c t i o n , p e r deg

LB
LID

Body l e n g t h , i n . Lift-to-drag r a t i o Mach n u m b e r T i m e , sec Velocity, f t l s e c Body a x i s a x i a l c o o r d i n a t e , i n . Body a x i s l a t e r a l c o o r d i n a t e , i n . Body a x i s v e r t i c a l c o o r d i n a t e , i n . Angle of a t t a c k , deg S i d e s l i p a n g l e , deg A i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n , deg Bodyflap d e f l e c t i o n , deg Elevon d e f l e c t i o n , deg Rudder d e f l e c t i o n , deg Speedbrake d e f l e c t i o n , deg

M T

V X Y Z
c1

B 6
6

a BF
e

6 6

r

&SB

ACIP cg GPC

IMU
448

Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Package C e n t e r of g r a v i t y General purpose computer I n e r t i a l Measurement U n i t

.L OF Poor4 PuALlW
Q .-t.-., ~ : <;.:i- i',&!ir, A .. ~ ,

1

-

MMLE3 POPU PTI
RC S

STS-1

M o d i f i e d maximum l i k e l i h o o d e s t i m a t o r , v e r s i o n 3 P u s h o v e r P u l l u p Maneuver Programmed t e s t i n p u t Reaction control system Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System, f l i g h t one INTRODUCTION

S t a b i l i t y a n d c o n t r o l t e s t i n g of t h e S p a c e S h u t t l e is d r i v e n by c o n f l i c t i n g p r o g r a m d e s i r e s , w h i l e l i m i t e d by u n i q u e p r o b l e m s . Space S h u t t l e f l i g h t s a r e v e r y c o s t l y when c o m p a r e d w i t h t e s t f l i g h t s o f ot'her a i r c r a f t . There i s an i n t e n s e d e s i r e w i t h i n t h e program t o b r i n g t h e S h u t t l e t o a n o p e r a t i o n a l mode, w h e r e p a y l o a d s c a n b e g i n t o ma'ce t h e S h u t t l e c o s t e f f e c t i v e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o a s s u r e t h e s a f e t y of e n t r y f l i g h t a n d t o i d e n t i f y t h e r e a l l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e S h u t t l e t h r o u g h f l i g h t t e s t i n g . This conflict i n goals has r e s u l t e d i n t h e n e e d f o r a minimum a m o u n t o f h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e test ing

.

C o n v e n t i o n a l f l i g h t t e s t t e c h n i q u e s and computer programs have formed t h e b a s i s f o r t h e S h u t t l e f l i g h t t e s t program. Modifications t o t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s have been n e c e s s a r y , however, due t o t h e i n h e r e n t c o r ~ s t r a i n t si n S h u t t l e t e s t i n g . Measures have been t a k e n t o e n s u r e t h e q u a l i t y o f m a n e u v e r s and t h e d a t a f r o m them, s o t h a t t h e number of re:?eat maneuvers c a n be minimized. The f l i g h t t e s t p l a n d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e S h u t t l e c o n t a i n s v e r y few t e ; j t p o i n t s when c o m p a r e d t o t e s t p r o g r a m s o f m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t . Enough m a n e u v e r s a r e s c h e d u l e d o n l y t o v e r i f y t h e s a f e t y of t h e S h u t t l e e n t r y , n o t enough t o b u i l d a f l i g h t t e s t d a t a b a s e . Where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between t h e f l i g h t d a t a and t h e wind 1 t u n n e l d a t a base, f u r t h e r t e s t p o i n t s are scheduled.
T h e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s a r e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e o n b o a r d s e n s o r d a t a t h r o u g h t h e MMLE3 p a r a m e t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

program.2 T h i s program w a s d e v e l o p e d a t Dryden F l i g h t R e s e a r c h method of e x t r a c t i n g d e r i v a t i v e s F a c i l i t y and i s a s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t MMLE3 i s t h e l a t e s t v e r s i o n o f a p r o g r a m w h i c h h a s from f l i g h t d a t a . b e e n u s e d i n many t e s t p r o g r a m s f o r a l l t y p e s o f a i r c r a f t . D e r i v a t i v e d e l t a s c a l c u l a t e d between f l i g h t and v a l u e s from t h e S h u t t l e A e r o d y n a m i c D e s i g n D a t a Book a r e p r o v i d e d t o S h u t t l e s i r i u l a t o r s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e s a f e t y o f f u r t h e r t e s t i n g on u p c o m i n g f l j - g h t s a n d . t o a s s u r e t h e s a f e t y of f l y i n g cg's a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 1 planned payloads.

449

SHUTTLE CONFIGURATION

ORJGlNAL P a % OF POOR Q U A L m

The Space Shuttle orbiter configuration for entry is shown in figure 1 . T h e o r b i t e r uses a combination of several control devices during entry for both longitudinal and lateral directional control and trim. The full span elevons, of which there are two panels on each side, are deflected together to act as an elevator. The left and right panels are deflected differentially to operate as ailerons. The bodyflap is hinged at the lower aft edge of the fuselage. The elevons and bodyflap work together during entry to perform the trim function. The elevon is scheduled to fly a specific profile in the flight software. The bodyflap trims the vehicle to keep the elevon on schedule. However, the bodyflap moves slowly, and the elevons move off schedule to trim pitch transients and perform longitudinal maneuvers. The combination rudder/speedbrake on the vertical tail has two panels which move together as a rudder. These panels separate to form a speedbrake, which is used as a drag device subsonically. The speedbrake also contributes to longitudinal trim control from Mach . 9 to 10. In a d d i t i o n t o c o n t r o l surfaces, t h e o r b i t e r has a reaction system (RCS), located in p o d s on either side of the a f t end of the vehicle. These jets contribute to trim and control capability during entry. Four s i d e firing j e t s on each side are used for yaw control. On each of the two aft pods there are three up- and three down-firing jets, which are used in combinations to provide roll and pitch control.
control

The control effectors are phased in and out by the flight control system to utilize them where their effectiveness is predictable and significant. Figure 2 illustrates how the flight control system uses the controls during entry. TEST REQUIREMENTS Aerodynamic test requirements have arisen from two sources. The original source is the preflight wind tunnel data and the associated uncertainties. The other source of requirements is the flight data from the initial flights, during which anomalies occurred. The types of problems identified involve either potentially excessive R C S fuel usage for longitudinal and lateral trim, or potential l o s s of control. Preflight Test Requirements Preflight wind tunnel data €or t h e orbiter i s very extensive and provided sufficient confidence to fly the initial missions under 3 benign conditions and within a limited range of Xcg From wind tunnel test data, a preflight data base was developed for use in simulators and for design of the entry guidance and flight control

.

450

OF POOR QUALlW
Uncertainties on these data were developed because of wind systems.' tunnel to flight differences noted in previous flight test programs o n other aircraft. Uncertainties were also assessed for high Mach number, low dynamic pressure flight regimes where wind tunnels were heretofore either unverified or not capable of reproducing flight conditions. Design specifications require that the orbiter be able to fly safely with a cg range of 6 5 to 6 7 . 5 % of the reference body length. Extremes of this range result in the limits of trim capability necessary to operate the vehicle. At the cg extremes, analysis indicates combinations of the uncertainties in pitching moment and the stability and control derivatives result in potential control problems. The problem areas defined from preflight data were the drivers in setting entry flight placards. A summary of these issues is listed in figure 3 , items A through E. From entry interface to a dynamic pressure of 20 lbs per s q ft, uncertainties in basic pitching moment and in pitch jet, bodyflap, and elevon effectiveness indicated a possible problem in longitudinal trim at the cg extremes. Such a trim problem would result in excessive use of RCS fuel by the pitch jets. From Mach 7 to 4.5, uncertainties in lateral trim and possible reversal in the sign of Cn could cause excessive use of RCS fuel by the yaw jets. ' a The reversed sign of C n
i s possible where the cg is

a ' at the forward limit, causing the elevons to be in the most up position. I n this position, t h e elevons are up out of the predictable flow in the lee of the wings. The most critical flight control regime occurs between Mach 4.5 to 1.0. The effectiveness of the aileron and jet trim capability continue to be of concern for the forward cg case. In addition, the
angle

of a t t a c k i s r a m p i n g d o w n , a n d t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l b e g i n s

to

be

exporred to f l o w past the vehicle. As t h e t a i l becomes e x p o s e d , uncertainty exists as to where the rudder becomes effective. Worst case combinations of uncertainties in this regime, with a forward cg, can potentially result in a l o s s of control. Flight testing is planned between Mach to uncertainties in rudder effectiveness at settings. The rudder is aft of the maximum vertj-cal tail, and effects of the flow past less certain with a closed speedbrake. numbers of . 9 and .75 due minimum speedbrake thickness point on the the rudder panels become

Flight Test Requirements from Flight Data Anomalies in the actual flight data have extended the test requirements as originally conceived. These anomalies have in some

45 1

cases accentuated the need for certain data already planned for. Others have pointed to a need for more concentrated investigation of certain flight regimes. A summary of flight anomalies is s h o w n in figure 3 , items 1 through 7 .

During the initial bank maneuver on flight 1 , at a dynamic pressure of 1 4 lbs per sq ft, a large oscillation occurred in sideslip. Studies have indicated that the primary cause was a missed prediction in roll due to yaw jet firing. 4
W hat

Another flight anomaly is a longitudinal trim difference from This o c c u r s b o t h in the hypersonic regime with a P itch up difference and in the transonic regime, where the difference
was predicted.

is a pitch down moment.4 Because the pitching moment anomaly causes more up ( - 1 elevon trim transonically, the aileron effectiveness data required in this regime has become even more important. The hypersonic anomaly has caused an increased need for longitudinal stability and control data to ascertain the contributions of Cm ,

, Cm , and Cm
$3

t o this problem.
0

e Figure 4 indicates the range of

6

F

a

elevon settings required € o r trim based on attributing the pitching moment difference to C m alone.
0

Causing additional interest i n the Mach 2 to 1 regime is an anomaly which has been observed on the first five flights. The anomaly is in the form of an undamped low amplitude roll oscillation, which has a frequency of approximately 114 hertz. This problem has not resulted in additional test requirements, since intensive testing is already planned for this regime. 4 Additional stability and control testing in the hypersonic regime has resulted from flight one data. These data indicated that lateral stability was different than expected. Specifically Cn was more ( + ) than expected. 3 ’ 5 9 6 In addition, aileron trim was observed to have an offset between Mach 23 and 1 2 . This offset changed signs, indicating possible flow asymmetries. Another important anomaly has occurred hypersonically. Above Mach 10, where the elevon schedule has been varied between -1 and + 5 on flights 1-4, the flight data indicate that the aileron is more effective than predicted at positive elevon deflections. The d a t a also indicate the effectiveness to be close to nominal at 00 elevon setting. While this is beneficial for positive deflections, the trend indicates that the aileron may be less effective at negative deflections. This accentuates the need for data which will clarify the dependence of aileron on elevon deflection.

B

452

These anomalies have not restricted the flight placards further. However, they have accentuated the need for data in certain flight regimes. They have also caused the planning of further testing in spec:ific areas. SHUTTLE FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM The Shuttle test program is the product of significant planning and integration with other program requirements. The flight test requirements from wind tunnel uncertainties and flight anomalies dictated the flight conditions at which maneuvers would be done. Sufficient maneuvers were planned a t nominal conditions to indicate repeatability of results. Additional maneuvers were planned over the ranges of elevon and angle of attack that will be seen operationally to check coefficient sensitivities t o these parameters. The test plan has been modified to provide additional information in areas where anomalies have occurred. This is necessary to establish an understanding of the anomaly and to develop a database for simulators, in areas where the wind tunnel data is deficient. The tests planned for each flight are limited by the nature of the Shuttle entry and by other program requirements. Only one maneuver at each flight condition is possible on a given flight, since the Shuttle glides from 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ft in altitude at Mach 2 5 to touchdown in the span of 30 minutes. The crew has monitoring functions and other tasks during entry that also limit the number of maneuvers that can be performed. This has resulted in a limit of 8 to 10 maneuvers per flight and in a ground rule which requires that maneuvers be spaced to the satisfaction of the flight crew. Another limitation is the amount of RCS fuel available for doing maneuvers. Entry tests must compete in priority with other mission objectives for R C S fuel. This includes on-orbit activities such as rendezvous tests and payload deployment. Other entry tests such as structural flutter tests and aerothermal test maneuvers ( P O P U ) have taken priority over stability
and c o n t r o l maneuvers,
because instrumentation for

these t e s t s w a s

available on flights 1-5 o n l y . When a conflict o c c u r s , g u i d a n c e maneuvers and guidance phase changes take priority over test maneuvers. The flight testing has been planned to meet program objectives. The :Eirst and most important is t o open the cg placards as quickly as possible, to verify the safety of flying planned payloads. In addition, data resulting from tests i s s c h e d u l e d to support p l a n n e d flight control system changes, which will improve control where inflight aerodynamic anomalies have occurred. Sensor Data for Testing Sensor data used in stability and control analysis is obtained from two basic sources. The primary source of data is the aerodynamic coefficient identification package (ACIP), which is located in the
453

e

w i n g c a r r y - t h r o u g h s t r u c t u r e ( f i g u r e 1). It w a s d e s i g n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r a e r o d y n a m i c d a t a extraction. T h e o t h e r s o u r c e is t h e o n b o a r d data s y s t e m , w h i c h p r o v i d e s real-time d a t a f o r t h e g u i d a n c e and f l i g h t c o n t r o l systems. B e c a u s e of t h e limited teat d a t a in the S h u t t l e test program, i t is i m p o r t a n t to e n s u r e h i g h q u a l i t y data. The AClP was designed to p r o v i d e t h e m o s t c r i t i c a l e x t r a c t i o n p a r a m e t e r s w i t h the q u a l i t y necessary. It c o n t a i n s b o d y a x i s x , y, and z linear a c c e l e r o m e t e r s , r a t e g y r o s , and a n g u l a r a c c e l e r o m e t e r s . A l s o r o u t e d t h r o u g h t h e A C I P data h a n d l i n g e q u i p m e n t a r e p o s i t i o n s i g n a l s f r o m e a c h e l e v o n p a n e l , t h e r u d d e r , and o n e y a w jet. A l l of this s e n s o r d a t a is p r o c e s s e d t o g e t h e r in t h e A C I P d a t a h a n d l i n g e q u i p m e n t t h r o u g h m a t c h e d p r e f i l t e r 6 and is t i m e tagged. T h i s is d o n e t o a s s u r e that t i m e skews b e t w e e n the m o s t i m p o r t a n t e x t r a c t i o n p a r a m e t e r s do not occur. A n o t h e r f e a t u r e o f t h e p a c k a g e is that t h e d a t a is r e c o r d e d w i t h h i g h r e s o l u t i o n , u t i l i z i n g a 14 bit s y s t e m a s o p p o s e d to a n 8 bit s y s t e m a v a i l a b l e f o r other S h u t t l e data. T h e s a m p l e rate of t h e d a t a is 1 7 3 s a m p l e per sec. T h e s e n s o r s c h o s e n for t h e p a c k a g e w e r e of t h e highest q u a l i t y available.
T h e o n b o a r d d a t a s y s t e m p r o v i d e s t h e r e m a i n i n g data. T h e 20 pitch, r o l l , and y a w jet s i g n a l s a r e included. O n e y a w jet is r o u t e d t h r o u g h A C I P so that t h e s i g n a l s in t h e o n b o a r d d a t a c a n be a l i g n e d in time. B o d y f l a p , s p e e d b r a k e , and a i r d a t a p a r a m e t e r s a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d in t h e o n b o a r d data. T h e a i r data probes a r e not d e p l o y e d u n t i l M a c h 3.5, p r o v i d i n g a n g l e of a t t a c k , d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e , t r u e a i r s p e e d , and M a c h number. B e f o r e t h e p r o b e s are d e p l o y e d , a i r d a t a p a r a m e t e r s a r e c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e o n b o a r d i n e r t i a l m e a s u r e m e n t unit ( I M U ) d a t a in t h e G e n e r a l P u r p o s e C o m p u t e r s (GPC) ( f i g u r e 1). A l s o c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e IMU d a t a a r e t h e E u l e r a n g l e s , w h i c h a r e used in d a t a e x t r a c t i o n . T h e d a t a f r o m t h e o n b o a r d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n is of lower r e s o l u t i o n an6 s a m p l e r a t e t h a n that f r o m ACIP. T h e d a t a is r e c o r d e d w i t h a n 8 bit The Euler s y s t e m . T h e s a m p l e r a t e of t h e jet d a t a is 2 5 hertz. a n g l e s and a i r d a t a a r e at 5 hertz.

S t a b i l i t y and C o n t r o l M a n e u v e r s M a n e u v e r s f o r s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d a t a have b e e n c a r e f u l l y It d e v e l o p e d t o p r o v i d e t h e m a x i m u m amount of i n f o r m a t i o n p o s s i b l e . is i m p o r t a n t in t h i s t e e t i n g to e x c i t e t h e m o t i o n d e f i n e d by t h e d e r i v a t i v e s in q u e s t i o n , S O as to i d e n t i f y t h e m f r o m the f l i g h t data. B e c a u s e of t h e l i m i t e d t e s t i n g of t h e S h u t t l e and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l s y s t e m , precise m a n e u v e r d e s i g n and e x e c u t i o n a r e very i m p o r t a n t . P o o r l y p e r f o r m e d m a n e u v e r s c a n be c o s t l y t o t h e program in the f o r m of f u r t h e r required t e s t i n g . T h e flight c o n t r o l s y s t e m of t h e S h u t t l e heavily m o d i f i e s i n p u t s t h r o u g h t h e s t i c k and is d e s i g n e d to d a m p o s c i l l a t i o n s and transients. T h i s d e s i g n c a u s e s d i f f i c u l t y in pulsing a c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r and a l l o w i n g m o t i o n to d a m p a6 is d o n e w i t h m o s t aircraft. I n pulsing t h e S h u t t l e , t h e c o n t r o l s y s t e m m o d i f i e s t h e s t i c k input w i t h f i l t e r s , r e s p o n d s to r a t e and a c c e l e r a t i o n f e e d b a c k v a l u e s , and d a m p s t h e
454

e

OF 2 C ' ! ..,

, .

< ,..

c.-3
1 1

J

r e s p o n s e w i t h f u r t h e r s u r f a c e motion. I n g e n e r a l , when t h e v e h i c l e i s pulsed a l l c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r s a v a i l a b l e a r e put i n t o a c t i o n t o q u i c k l y damp t h e v e h i c l e m o t i o n . This can cause d i f f i c u l t y i n s e p a r a t i n g out I t makes i t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e v a r i o u s c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r s . a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y damping d e r i v a t i v e s . To o v e r c o m e t h i s i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m a n d t o p r o v i d e e x a c t d e s i g n e d i n p u t s , programmed t e s t i n p u t s ( P T I ) were d e v e l o p e d . T h i s t y p e of maneuver i s i n p u t d i r e c t l y t o t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l s y s t e m t h r o u g h onboard s o f t w a r e . The a m p l i t u d e a n d t i m i n g a r c g o v e r n e d b y p r o g r a m m e d variables t o generate a specific input a t a predesignated f l i g h t condition. The c r e w i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e m a n e u v e r s i s a l m o s t e n t i r e l y a monit.oring f u n c t i o n . The m a n e u v e r s e q u e n c i n g i s i n i t i a t e d b y t h e c r e w b e f o r e t h e f i r s t m a n e u v e r , and t h e s o f t w a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y e x e c u t e s t h e p r e d e f i n e d maneuvers w i t h i n s p e c i f i e d windows. T h e s e windows a r e d e f i n e d by d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e o r Mach n u m b e r . The s o f t w a r e a v o i d s e x e c u t i n g maneuvers c l o s e t o bank r e v e r s a l s and o t h e r g u i d a n c e phase changes. The c r e w m o n i t o r s t r a j e c t o r y a n d t r i m p a r a m e t e r s and i m p o r t a n t e n t r y f l i g h t systems t o a s s u r e s a f e maneuver c o n d i t i o n s . 'The c r e w c a n q u i c k l y s t o p t h e m a n e u v e r s e q u e n c e by m o v i n g t h e s t i c k o r They h a v e f u l l s e l e c t i n g t h e c o n t r o l s t i c k s t e e r i n g ( C S S ) mode. v i s i b i l i t y i n t o t h e t e s t i n g s t a t u s t h r o u g h i t e m s on t h e i r d i s p l a y s . T h e i n p u t s a r e made t h r o u g h t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l s y s t e m , a n d g o t o a n i n t e g r a t o r a t t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e s u r f a c e d e f l e c t i o n i s commanded. The command, a s u r f a c e 'The i n p u t i s a d d e d t o t h e c u r r e n t command. r a t e , i s t h e n p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h a maximum r a t e l i m i t f u n c t i o n . S i g n a l s c a n be s e n t t o t h e e l e v o n , a i l e r o n , r u d d e r , and p i t c h , yaw, B e c a u s e of t h e d i r e c t i n p u t c a p a b i l i t y , m a n e u v e r s a r e (and r o l l j e t s . i n p u t i n t h e a u t o m a t i c g u i d a n c e mode. The i n p u t i s i n t h e f o r m o f a doublet. T h e d o u b l e t commands s u r f a c e r a t e i n o n e d i r e c t i o n a n d t h e n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n p r o v i d i n g only a p u l s e from t h e c o n t r o l effector. These d o u b l e t s c a n be s t r u n g t o g e t h e r i n c o m b i n a t i o n s t o : ? r o v i d e v a r i o u s i n p u t s f r o m e a c h of t h e c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r s . There is a c a p a b i l i t y t o d e f i n e 2 5 PTI w i n d o w s , a n d t h e r e a r e 45 d o u b l e t s t h a t c a n b e g r o u p e d i n t h e windows a s d e s i r e d . The i n p u t f r o m t h e a u t o m a t i c P T I i s n o t c o m p l e t e l y f r e e o f f l i g h t c o n t r o l system i n t e r f e r e n c e , but t h e d e s i g n does a l l o w f o r enhanced maneuvers. An e x a m p l e o f a m a n e u v e r f o r Mach 5 . 8 i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 5. T h e i n p u t s a r e d e f i n e d by a m p l i t u d e s , t i m e s , a n d t h e e f f e c t o r t o be p u l s e d . The f l i g h t c o n t r o l s y s t e m c o n t i n u e s t o r e s p o n d t o t h e m o t i o n f e e d b a c k , b u t d i r e c t i n p u t c a n b e made t o t h e c o n t r o l effector. I n t h i s e x a m p l e i t i s p o s s i b l e t o make t h e a i l e r o n i n p u t w h i l e t h e r e a r e n o yaw j e t f i r i n g s . Direct input t o t h e surfaces i n a "bare airframe" sense i s not p o s s i b l e i n t h e program a t p r e s e n t . With t h e b a s i c l a c k of s t a b i l i t y of t h e S h u t t l e , i t would n o t be s a f e t o maneuver t h e v e h i c l e w i t h o u t an a c t i v e c o n t r o l system. The a u t o m a t i c P T I d e s i g n o f f e r s t h e m o s t feasible alternative that is available.

ORIGINAL

1 5

OF POOR QUALITY

Maneuvers, once designed for the optimum motion for data extraction, are assessed for flight control and guidance safety. Although potential problem areas are approached carefully, care must be taken in maneuvering not to excite an undamped or diverging oscillation. It is also important not to perturb the trajectory s o as t o disturb the ranging capability during the Shuttle's gliding descent. Maneuvers are studied extensively for flight control safety. Both off-line and real-time simulators are used to study maneuvers with worst case aerodynamic uncertainty combinations. Maneuver amplitudes are increased to assess safety margins. Loss of R C S jets is also simulated. Flight test aerodynamic results are fed through this same process to ascertain maneuver safety margins with data that is the best possible representation of actual Shuttle characteristics. Maneuver guidance impacts and entry timeline conflicts are assessed in a similar manner. Simulations are run to determine conflicts between stability and control maneuvers and guidance maneuvers and phase changes. Shuttle pilots assess maneuver conflicts with other important pilot functions. If conflicts arise from these studies, maneuver windows are adjusted or are deleted. In general the short, low amplitude, PTI maneuvers have a negligible impact on guidance capability, but they are studied nonetheless. When combined . with other maneuver sequences, guidance impacts can occur. R C S jet fuel budgets for maneuvers are developed during these simulations to provide the pilots with fuel "red lines" that must not be violated, in order t o continue initiating maneuvers. Usage of R C S fuel during maneuvers is significant. Loss of vehicle control is possible if the R C S fuel is depleted. Shuttle Maneuver Test Plan The maneuvers planned or already flown on each flight are listed in figure 6 . The left-hand column lists the flight conditions at which the tests are planned. The other columns are labeled by flight number. Flight one had no planned maneuvers other than bank reversals required for ranging. The first entry was designed to be as benign a s possible. Flight 2 had 2 5 maneuvers, including pitch and roll maneuvers for stability and control data, a pushover pullup maneuver, and bodyflap pulses. Subsequent to STS-2, decisions were made to reduce the number of maneuvers per flight so as t o decrease crew workload during entry. As a result fewer maneuvers are shown on flights 3-17. The test program has therefore evolved from an initial 10 flights into a 17-flight program in order to obtain sufficient data. It can be observed in figure 6 that the most concentrated testing is from Mach 6 to . 9 . This is because it is the most critical regime with respect to potential problems in stability and control. The test plan for stability and control data is designed to provide sufficient information to remove forward and aft cg constraints. The forward center of gravity travel is limited primarily by aileron characteristics at negative elevon settings.
456

To

OR!GlP?z:l. PJzz

;a'

OF PO08 QU.4t.:iY
verify the aileron characteristics before flying a forward c g , the vehicle trim of a forward cg is simulated by appropriate scheduling of the elevon. Elevon schedules for flights 1-17 are shown in figure 7 . Also shown a r e the locations of the maneuvers from figure 6 along these schedules. The schedules cover the range of expected values for the f u l l range of cg's. These elevon schedules a r e attained during flight by onboard software programming of the elevon settings. T h e bodyflap is used to trim the vehicle at the given setting. A backup elevon schedule is also programmed to be more benign, s o that it can be s.witched to if a control problem is anticipated o r discovered during the flight. The schedule shown for flight 2 is the most benign schedule and provides the most positive aileron control between Mach 6 to 1. As the flights progress and more data is obtained, the elevons are to be scheduled gradually more up ( - 1 until the most forward cg is simulated o n flights 14-17. Hypersonically, the elevon is being trimmed beyond w h a t is required during normal entry for a forward cg (figure 4). This is due to the data already obtained w h i c h indicated anomalous aileron effectiveness as a function of elevon position. The settings shown on flights 1 4 to 17 should shed additional light o n this problem and the results can be used to assess certain abort profiles w h i c h use more negative elevon positions for trim. Angle of attack w i l l be varied o n a limited number of flights. Figure 8 illustrates the nominal angle of attack profiles to be flown o n particular flights. Maneuvers will be executed along these profiles to verify predicted angle-of-attack trends in stability and cont:col parameters. Flights 6 , 8 , and 1 2 w i l l be flown with a n elevon schedule that has been flown previously s o as to vary only one parameter at a time. Flights 1 4 , 1 6 , and 17 will be flown w i t h a n elevon setting that represents the trim requirements f o r a forward cg. The :nymbols represent where maneuvers w i l l occur along the profile o n flights where the profile is off-nominal. Stability derivatives C and C
U

a r e of particular interest as a function of angle of attack.

5 3

In addition, a n understanding of the possibility of aileron
effectiveness being a function of the angle of attack of the elevon is to btz s t u d i e d . This will require deviations in both angle of attack and elevon position f o r various maneuver test points. Additional factors in the planning will contribute to the necerisary understanding of the stability and control characteristics of the Shuttle. Figure 9 shows speedbrake schedules for the nominal e n t r y , and planned schedules for flights 5 through 1 7 . With these different schedules, rudder sensitivities c a n be obtained. With the automatic maneuvers beginning o n flight 5 , a rudder pulse can be input at any point regardless of whether o r not the rudder is active in the flight control system. The rudder normally becomes active at Mach 3.5. W i t h this capability, the rudder effectiveness w i l l be tested 1/2 Mach number higher per flight, beginning o n flight 5 at Mach 4. To obtain further data o n possible aerodynamic asymmetric characteristics of the Shuttle Y c g , offsets are planned through payload placement. Ycg values o f .5 to . 9 inches have been flown o n flights 4 and 5. A Ycg value of 1.5 inches is planned for flights 7
457

B

OR1GrNAL

PmE

OF POOR Q U A L m
and 11, with the sign of the offset reversing between the two flights. Although POPU maneuvers were planned primarily to obtain aerodynamic performance and aerothermal data, these maneuvers were also a valuable source of additional lougitudinal stability and control data. Bodyflap pulses were flown only on STS-5. During these maneuvers the crew manually changed bodyflap trim down ( + ) to move the elevons up ( - ) . A P T I was then performed. This was to provide early indications of aileron effectiveness with more ( - 1 elevon settings.
F L I G H T DATA ASSESSMENTS

An important product of the flight test program is the confidence that is gained from flight test results in assessing the safety o f upcoming flights. Vehicle cg's associated with specific payloads must be shown to be safe. In addition, further testing in the flight test program depends on values of derivatives obtained from previous tests. For instance, it is important to understand as much as possible about stability aqd control characteristics for down elevon positions, before it is safe to fly with elevons at more negative settings. To accomplish this, fairings are developed for the flight test results and are provided to the Shuttle flight control system community. These fairings or 'lassesement" values are incorporated into simulators which are used to verify the safety of upcoming flights. Exact In maneuvers and trajectory profiles are simulated with correct c g ' s . addition, stability analyses are performed using the flight derived aerodynamic data to update cg placards for the vehicle.
STS-1 Through - 4 Flight Assessment Values

Flight test results in the form of stability and control derivatives have been output for use in simulators after flights 1, 2, and 4 . Some of the most significant of these derivatives are shown in figures 10 to 17. These figures show derivative values for various types of maneuvers from flights 1 to 4. It is important to note that the highest quality maneuvers are the PTI's, which have darkened symbols. In the plots preflight 1 Aerodynamic Design Data Book values (solid line) and the associate uncertainties are drawn.' The uncertainty brackets on the derivatives are Cramer Rao bounds, which provide information on the relative accuracy of data extraction Also drawn on the plots are the STS-2 and -4 between data points.2 asseasment values, where they exist. These assessment values are the fairings that have been published from flights 2 and 4 for these derivatives.

those for flight 2 . Above Mach 1 0 the flight test values are shown to be significantly more positive than what was predicted. This is of no particular concern, however, to the safety of the

5 3 identical to

For C

in figure 1 0 the assessment values for flight 4 are

458

ORIGWAL PAGE OF POOR QUALITY
S h u t t l e t h r o u g h this M a c h regime. Below Mach 6 the C

r s

s h o w n t o be a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f w a y b e t w e e n n o m i n a l a n d t h e l o w e r v a l u e
o f the uncertainties. T h i s v a l u e of C b y itself I s n o t o f c o n c e r n f o r S h u t t l e safety of flight. 53

%

fairing is

A i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s a b o v e M a c h 1 0 is s h o w n f o r PTI's in figures 1.1 t h r o u g h 13. T h e s e v a l u e s a r e p l o t t e d a s a f u n c t i o n of e l e v o n position. B e c a u s e of t h e s p r e a d of e l e v o n b e t w e e n f l i g h t s 1 t h r o u g h 4 i n t h i s M a c h r e g i m e ( f i g u r e 7 1 , a d i f f e r e n c e in t h e e f f e c t of e l e v o n 011 a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s h a s b e e n d i s c o v e r e d . A l l the aileron derivatives, C , C , and Cn , indicate increased effectiveness a a with down elevon deflections.

Y6

a ' The assessment values for elevon

s e t t i n g s a b o v e 0' w e r e s e t t o n o m i n a l , b e c a u s e o f t h e l a c k of data. 11' t h e t r e n d f o r p o s i t i v e e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n s e x t e n d s to n e g a t i v e e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n s , t h e a i l e r o n may b e l e s s e f f e c t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . Although this difference between predicted and actual aileron e f f e c t i v e n e s s h a s little effect on safety hypersonically, the impact t o c g p l a c a r d s c o u l d be i m p o r t a n t if t h e t r e n d c o n t i n u e s at l o w e r M a c h numbers. T e s t i n g o n l a t e r f l i g h t s , w h e r e t h e e l e v o n w i l l be s c h e d u l e d w i t h m o r e n e g a t i v e s e t t i n g s , w i l l p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y d a t a to d e t e r m i n e S h u t t l e cg impacts. This example points out the importance of o b t a i n i n g d e r i v a t i v e s e n s i t i v i t i e s t o e l e v o n a n d a n g l e of a t t a c k p ~ o f i l c s . B e t w e e n M a c h 2 a n d 1 ( f i g u r e 14) t h e f l i g h t v a l u e s of r o l l In t h i s d u e t o a i l e r o n a r e s h o w n t o be l e s s e f f e c t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . r e g i o n t h e e l e v o n h a s b e e n a b o v e 0' d e f l e c t i o n d u e t o o v e r s h o o t i n g t h e B e c a u s e t h e r e h a s b e e n n o s p r e a d in t h e elevon schedule (figure 7 ) . e l e v o n d e f l e c t i o n s o n f l i g h t s 1 to 4, it is n o t y e t p o s s i b l e t o a t t r i b u t e t h i s a n o m a l y t o e f f e c t i v e n e s s d u e to e l e v o n position. L a t e r flighte vi11 provide the spread necessary to determine this function. T h e most significant updates in stability and c o n t r o l a e r o d y n a m i c s a r e the assessment v a l u e s a n d n e w u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r yaw
jet effectiveness.
F i g u r e s 1 5 t h r o u g h 1 7 show v e r y c o n s i s t e n t f l i g h t

A f t e r STS-4 s u f f i c i e n t RCS jet data was available to update nominal values and reduce e f f e c t i v e n e s s u n c e r t a i n t i e s f r o m e a r l y e n t r y t h r o u g h M a c h 1, w h e r e t h e The jets were shown to be m o r e effective y a w j e t . 8 a r e t u r n e d off. t h a n predicted. T h e s e r e s u l t s h a v e had a d r a m a t i c e f f e c t o n cg e x p a n s ion. C e n t e r of G r a v i t y E x p a n s i o n T h e p r i m a r y g o a l of t h e e n t i r e d a t a e x t r a c t i o n e f f o r t is t o o p e n c g p l a c a r d s f o r t h e S h u t t l e , so t h a t t h e f u l l p a y l o a d c a r r y i n g c a p a b i l i t y c a n be u t i l i z e d . T h r o u g h t h e p l a n n e d m a n e u v e r s , and e l e v o n a n d a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k s c h e d u l e s , s u f f i c i e n t d a t a is t o b e o b t a i n e d t o verify the Shuttle operational safety during entry. The operational l i m i t s f o r c g h a v e b e e n s p e c i f i e d t o b e f r o m 6 5 t o 67.5 p e r c e n t of t h e

t e s t r:esults f o r R C S y a w j e t e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

459

reference body length. This represents a cg travel of 32.32 inches. It is the goal of the test program to relax cg placards to these operational limits. Figure 1 8 shows the expansion of the Xcg that has taken place as a result of flight test data from STS-1 through - b . Opening of the aft cg boundary as well as initial opening of the forward boundary is primarily a result of the confidence that has been gained in the knowledge of t h e basic pitching moment of the vehicle. This information resulted in the known elevon and bodyflap trim requirements shown in figure 4. Pitch jet trim requirements were also determined. The most restrictive boundary is the forward c g limit, because of the critical potential problem areas between Mach 6 and 1. The most significant relaxation of this forward boundary occurred because of the yaw jet flight test results. The more effective j e t s along with the reduced uncertainties resulted in the change shown in the placard between STS-5 and - 6 . This has proved the safety of flying payloads planned € o r STS-7 and - 9 . Also shown in figure 18 are aft cg flight test limits, which must be honored in order to fly the elevon schedules planned for these flights. Relaxation of the boundary to the full forward limit of 65-percent b o d y length will occur as a result of decreases in other stability and control derivative uncertainties by the end of the flight test program. Optimistically these data will prove that predicted potential control problems d o not exist.
C ONCLU S IONS

Placards on the Space Shuttle during entry are to be r e d u c e d after 17 flights, based on high quality data from carefully designed maneuvers. The maneuvers are planned to verify data base predictions at critical flight conditions and reduce uncertainties in the corresponding aerodynamics. The plan provides for maneuvers at safe centers of gravity while simulating control surface settings for critical cg values. The plan takes into account findings from test data already analyzed. The approach is optimistic and ambitious, b u t every effort is being made to ensure its success through careful maneuver design, data quality and safety analyses. The experience gained and techniques e m p l o y e d in the Shuttle program are applicable to future flight test planning in programs where testing must be limited due to time constraints or expense. REFERENCES 1. "Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Orbiter Vehicle 102, V o l . 1 , " S D 7 2 SH-0060, Vol. lM, Space Systems Group, Rockwell International, November 1980.
Maine,

2.

Richard E . ; a n d Iliff, Ke:$neth W.: User's M a n u a l f o r " L 3 , a General FORTRAN Program for Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation. N A S A TP-1563, 1980.

460

0

3.

Underwood, J i m m y M.; and Cooke, Douglas R.: A Preliminary C o r r e l a t i o n of the Orbiter Stability and C o n t r o l A e r o d y n a m i c s from the F i r s t Two S p a c e S h u t t l e F l i g h t s ( S T S - 1 and -2j w i t h Preflight Predictions. A I A A P a p e r 82-0564, M a r c h 1982. C o o k e , D o u g l a s R.: Space S h u t t l e Stability and Control Test Plan. A I A A Paper 82-1315, August 1982.

4.
5.

Iliff, K e n n e t h W.;
S h u t t l e Entry.

M a i n e , Richard E.; and C o o k e , Douglas R.: A I A A Paper 81-2451, November 1981.

S e l e c t e d S t a b i l i t y and C o n t r o l D e r i v a t i v e s f r o m t h e F i r s t S p a c e

6.

"Evaluation of t h e Space S h u t t l e Orbiter First Flight Descent Phase," AFFTC-TR-81-21, Office of A d v a n c e d Manned V e h i c l e s , A i r F o r c e F l i g h t Test Center, J u l y 1981.

46 1
-.-

OMS ENGINE YAW THRUSTERS

PITCH-DOWN/ THRUSTERS

6
SPLIT RUDDER/ SPE E DBRA K E

<.sb"-

PITCH-UP/
ROLL THRUSTERS

-RCS

JETS

GPC
F i g u r e 1.- S h u t t l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

ENTRY INTEYFACE

END OF MISSION
I

a=lO PSF
9 ~ 2 PSF 0

r103

9=2
350

r

r

0 -

TIME FROM ENTRY INTERFACE (HIN)

Figure 2.-

Control e f f e c t o r phasing.

462

0

PRE-FLIGHT CONCERNS AT C C EXTREMES

A VISCOUS TRIM AND LONGITUDINAL CONTROL
(RCS FUEL TRIM AUTHORITY) 8 . LATIDIR TRIM WITH ADVERSE C, EXCESSIVE RCS FUEL.TRIY AUTUORITYI 1 . C L A T l D l R TRIM. CONTROL AVTHORITV WITH UNCERTAIN AILERON. RUDDER JETS D L A T l D l R CONTROL AUTHORITV WITH UNCERTAIN AILERON. RUDDER JETS E. LOSS OF RUDDER EFFECTIVENESS AND L I T STABILITY A T LOW SPEED BRAKE SETTINQS

URTWAL PAZS OF POOR Q U A L W

40 35

STS-1 ANOMALIES

4 AILEAON EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF ELEVON POSITION NOT AS PRECICTED (CyA,. Cpb*,Cnsr)

I SUPERSONIC ANOMALIES A Cp $ LOW, MACH 3-1 ,
I)

MACM 2-1 OSCILLATIONS (Cp,,.Cp

)I ,

6 BODY FLAP SATURATES UP 7 MACH 24-1 CnBMIGH BY VARIATIONS

O

'
2

I

"
4

'
6

I
0
10

l
14

12

i 16

l 18

I
20

I 22

l
24

)
28

MACH

Figure 3 . -

P r e f l i g h t t e s t r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d f l i g h t anomalies.

0
s w
s
z
v)

10

DOWN ELEVON

AFT C.G. BF = 1 6 . 3 O

5

BF

AFT C.G. 22.5O

s o t
z a
w

FORWARD C.G.
BF

=

-11.7O

B
-5

6e (FORWARD C.G., 6BF = -11.7)+ Ab0 (Cm UNCERTAINTY)

1

\'
'J
UP ELEVON

I

-10

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

1

,
22

1 4 )

I

1

2

4

6

8

10

12
MACH

14

16

18

20

24

V

I

I

20

15

10

5

I 0

4(PW

Figure 4 . -

Elevon t r i m capability.

463

YAW JET INPUT

A1 62.5 A2=10 TIME (SEC)I LOAD 1 15 21 9 50

=

60
PTI INPUT (NONDIMENSIONAL) -10 -20 I-

-

II

2

4

3

ROLL RATE (DEGISEC).;
-2 -3

3
(DEGISEC)
0

1

2

3

4 5 6 7 TIME (SEC)

8

9

10

F i g u r e 5.-

Automatic P T I capability.

464

I

L - LATERAL DIRECTIONAL

P PITCH MANEUVER

-

S STRUCTURAL PTI

-

BF . BODY FLAP PULSE POPU PUSHOVER PULLUP

Y -MANEUVER NOT
EXECUTED

-

-

Figure 6.-

Maneuver t e s t p l a n .

465

10

NUMBERS REPRESENT FLIGHT NUMBERS DARKENED SYMBOL =PITCH MANEUVER HALF-DARKENED SYMBOL = BOTH LATERAL AND PITCH u = MANEUVERS AT OFF-NOMINAL ANOLES OF ATTACK STS

5

4,5,6,10

3

H
0,
W I

2.8.12

0

7
1.7 9 11.13

0 I
P
2
Y W d

3

-6

Q

."
STS-2 STS-3

!
-10

0 0 0

STS-4

d
0

0 0

0 STS-I

STS-6 STS-7 STS-8 STS-9

0 &

0 v
I
16

STS.10 STS-11 STS-12 STS-13

0

D

2 0

STS-14 STS-15 STS-16 STS-17

I
2

I

4

I 6

I
6

I
10

I
12
MACH

I
14

I
18

I
20

I
22

I
24

I
20

I
15

I
10

l
5

I
0

9 (PSF)

F i g u r e 7.-

Flight t e s t elevon p r o f i l e s .

50
45

ALL FLIGHTS NOT SHOWN ARE AT NOMINAL a

A
STS-843

G W
0
Y

40

40

35

36

? 30
U
0
LL

25

u

z
4

20

15
I
I

10

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

L

I

I

I

I

I

]

2

4

6

8

10

12 14 MACH

16

18

20

22

2 5 2 0 15 10 5 0

9 PSF)

F i g u r e 8.-

Flight test angle-of-attack p r o f i l e s .

466

/

. ...
c

100
90

80

W W

s

70

e

60

Y

rn
w

2

50
40

8

n
v)

30
20 10

0

I

I

.s
F i g u r e 9.-

1

2

3 4 5678910 MACH NUMBER

20

30

Speedbrake schedule f o r t e s t i n g .

.--UNCERTAINTIES
A
ENTERBANKREVERSAL

1

I

1

I

I

5

1

10

15 MACH

a0

25

30

F i g u r e 10.- C,
B

, STS

1-4.

467

,010

,008

-i
1

,006

,004

.ooz
CY

&a ,000

(1IDEC)

-

-.002

----0

-.004

c
3
I

UNCERTAINTIES 575.4 A5SES5MENT

-

I

STS-2
ST5-3 STS4

-.006

-4

- AODB’
I I
1

-.000

I

A-

I

I

I
6

-3

-2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

ELEVON (DEG)

F i g u r e 11.- C,

a s a function of

e l e v o n positinn

for

M > 10, S T S 1-4.

l6

a

xt~-4
50

45

40

35

____UNCERTAINTIES STS-4 ASSESSMENT i STS-2 . 2 STS-3 7 STS-4 ADDB~

.....

30

-

10

15

-

10

5 -

0

1

I

I

I 1

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

-4

-3

-2

0

1 ELEVON (DEG)

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 1 2 . a

as a

function o f e l e v o n p o s i t i o n f o r

M

> 1 0 , STS 1 - 4 .

468

x10-4

is

10

\
5

A

--- -0 0

UNCERTAINTIES

OF POOR QUALW

STS-4 ASSESSMENT
STS-2 STS-3
STS-d

-

ADDB~

0
C"

61

(l/DEG) -5

-10

-15

~

-25

1
-4

I

I

I

I

I

I

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

I 3

I
4

1

I

5

6

ELEVON (DEG)

-

Figure 13.-

C
"A

as a f u n c t i o n o f e l e v o n p o s i t i o n

for

M

> 10,

STS 1 - 4 .

a

A

ENTERBANKREVERSAL EXIT BANK REVERSAL PROGRAMMED TEST INPUT (PTI)

v

-

-------

0

OTHER
UNCERTAINTY
STS-2 ASSESSMENT
STS-4 ASSESSMENT ADDB'

0

-25

.SO

.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

MACH

F i g u r e 14.- R o l l i n g m o m e n t d u e t o a i l e r o n , S T S 1 - 4 .

469

1000
T

--

NO STS-2 ASSESSMENT STS.4 ASSESSMENT UPDATED UNCERTAINTY -_.. ORIGINAL UNCERTAINTY

0

-1ow

YJET (PER JET)

-2ooc

-3000

-

iI

I

I
'

A V

ENTER BANK REVERSAL EXIT BANK REVERSAL PROGRAMMED TEST INPUT (PTI)
ADDB~

.,.

I
I

0 OTHER

-4000
C

I

I

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

MACH

F i g u r e 15.- S i d e f o r c e d u e t o y a w j e t s ,

STS 1 - 4 .

lLJET (PER JET)
0
r

-A

____ UPDATED UNCERTAINTY
V D
0

STS-I ASSESSMENT PROPOSED UNCERTAIN

- ADDB'
-3
0
I
I

ENTERBANKREVERSAL EXIT BANK REVERSAL PROGRAMMED TEST INPUT (PTI) OTHER
I

I

I

I

, I

5

10

15

20

25

I 30

MACH

F i g u r e 16.- R o l l i n g m o m e n t d u e t o y a w j e t s ,

STS 1 - 4 .

470

45

40

PROGRAMMED T E b l INPUT

0

OTHER

1

Ill

1

I

I

I

I

1

10

15 MACH

ZD

25

30

F i g u r e 17.- Y a wing m o m e n t d u e t o y a w j e t s , S T S 1 - 4 .

0 PLANNED C.G. VALUES INCHES (FABRICATION O BODY h 1110 CooRDINA LENGTH

///////// SAFETY OF FLIGHT BOUNDARY

r

S X b MACH 3 6 10 TEST BOUNDARY BF = 1 6 . 3 O U S

& / Z& HYPERSONIC TEST BOUNDARY BF = 16.3O

0
K
@

1094.7Q

6SL

I

I

1

2

I

3

4

5

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

1

I

I

I

I

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18

I

FLIGHT NUMBER

F i g u r e 18.- S h u t t l e c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y p l a c a r d s (H = 3.5).

47 1

S T A B I L I T Y AND CONTROL OVER THE SUPERSONIC

AND HYPERSONIC SPEED RANGE

Harold R. Compton, James R. S c h i e s s , W i l l i a m T. S u i t , William I . S c a l l i o n , and JoAnn I,?. Hudgins NASA 7.angley Research Center Hampton, V i r g i n i a

SUMMARY
The performance and aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Space S h u t t l e Ccilumbia are analyzed over the speed range from Mach 2 t o 26 using f l i g h t d a t a taken from t h e f i r s t f i v e Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System (STS) f l i g h t s . These d a t a are used t o r e c o n s t r u c t the e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y , c a l c u l a t e v e h i c l e performance, and estimate l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s i n c l u d i n g t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d with the onboard Reaction Control System (RCS). The t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n process is discussed i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the v e h i c l e f l i g h t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Vehicle performance r e s u l t s a r e presented which show t h a t l i f t and drag were g e n e r a l l y overpredicted by 3 percent and t h a t t h e l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o was underpredicted by 1 percent. Anomalies i n pitching-moment t r i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are shown and noted t o be due t o real-gas and Mach-number e f f e c t s . Lateral s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s estimated using programmed test i n p u t maneuvers are c o r r e l a t e d with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s and a r e u s u a l l y within t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e p r e d i c t i o n s . The l a t e r a l r e a c t i o n - c o n t r o l system e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s evaluated. In terms of s i d e f o r c e and yawing moment, the l a t e r a l s i d e f i r i n g (yaw) j e t s are v i r t u a l l y 100 percent e f f e c t i v e . However, the r o l l i n g moment due t o yaw j e t f i r i n g s is s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from what had been p r e d i c t e d due t o j e t plume i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s .

INTRODUCTION

The f i v e f l i g h t STS test plan was r e c e n t l y concluded with the s a f e e n t r y and recovery of t h e Space S h u t t l e Columbia from i t s f i f t h f l i g h t . Each of these f l i g h t s was unique i n t h a t i t met s p e c i f i c requirements of t h e i n t e g r a t e d test p l a n f o r expanding t h e STS f l i g h t envelope i n terms of aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics. They were a l s o unique as an ensemble i n t h a t t h e y o f f e r e d repeated o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o a f u l l - s c a l e winged v e h i c l e moving through a real environment over t h e e n t i r e flow regime from free-molecule through t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e hypersonic continuum and then t o subsonic flow. Thus i t follows n a t u r a l l y t h a t t h e Space Systems Division (SSD) a t t h e Langley Research Center (LaRC) w a s extremely i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s because of t h e long-time engagement of SSD i n r e s e a r c h t h a t c e n t e r s around a p p l i c a t i o n s t o f u t u r e space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems. Hence, members of SSD with s p e c i f i c e x p e r t i s e s u p p o r t from o t h e r r e s e a r c h d i v i s i o n s have analyzed and a r e continuing t o analyze flf-ght d a t a from the ensemble of f l i g h t s i n support of ongoing aerodynamic and

;..,
1.

? -

*

:

.%

...._.. . .

Preceding page blank
.
-

473
-

..

-.

...

.

...,, ,. .

F;ii!4

aerothermodynamic r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o f u t u r e space t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems. Only t h e research a c t i v i t y r e l a t e d t o aerodynamics w i l l be discussed i n t h i s paper. This a c t i v i t y i s proceeding, with a few minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s , as planned ( r e f s . 1, 2, and 3) p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t test f l i g h t . The proposed methods and techniques have made maximum use of onboard measurement d a t a and have proven extremely f l e x i b l e i n the use of a l t e r n a t i v e d a t a sources i n c a s e s of d a t a loss f o r an e n t i r e f l i g h t o r d a t a dropouts during down-link telemetry. Generally, t h e onboard measurement systems have functioned very w e l l except f o r some d i s a p p o i n t i n g l o s s e s of Development F l i g h t I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n (DFI) p r e s s u r e d a t a on STS-1, 2, and 4 . The purpose of t h i s p a p e r is t o present r e c e n t r e s u l t s from analyses of S T S - 4 and 5 f l i g h t d a t a and t o summarize o v e r a l l r e s u l t s from t h e f i v e f l i g h t s . Detailed r e s u l t s from STS-1, 2, and 3 have been previously p r e s e n t e d ( r e f . 4 , 5) and are d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s paper only in t h e context of t h e o v e r a l l r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s . In a d d i t i o n , and i n keeping with the theme of t h e c u r r e n t forum, S h u t t l e performance and l e s s o n s l e a r n e d will be h i g h l i g h t e d i n t h i s p a p e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , S h u t t l e t r a j e c t o r v and aerodynamic performance are p r e s e n t e d , and f l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s a r e compared with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e same q u a n t i t i e s . A l t e r n a t i v e methods and f l i g h t d a t a f o r e x t r a c t i n g some of t h e s e d e r i v a t i v e s a r e d i s c u s s e d with t h e r e l a t i v e merits of each of them being pointed o u t . The r e s u l t s i n t h i s p a p e r should prove u s e f u l f o r a p p l i c a t i o n s t o f u t u r e STS programs and for t h e development of numerical and a n a l y t i c a l methods o f computational f l u i d dynamics.

METHOD AND APPROACH
General Discussion

For t h e most p a r t , two b a s i c approaches have been use- t o o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s paper. They are g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as determin i s t i c and e s t i m a t i o n ( s t a t i s t i c a l ) approaches, and they have been discussed i n d e t a i l i n a previous p u b l i c a t i o n ( r e f . 4 ) . Therefore, only t h e b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e s a r e noted here. The d e t e r m i n i s t i c method r e q u i r e s t h a t measured v a l u e s of v e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n s and rates during e n t r y be combined with corresponding measured values of atmospheric d e n s i t y t o make s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a n a l y t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s of v e h i c l e performance i n terms of t o t a l f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s . In t h e s t a t i s t i c a l or e s t i m a t i o n approach, the measured a c c e l e r a t i o n s and rates a r e combined with v a r i o u s t r a j e c t o r y parameters and t h e measured atmosphere i n a maximum l i k e l i h o o d estimate t o determine s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s i n c l u d i n g those t h a t relate t o t h e r e a c t i o n c o n t r o l system (RCS). The f l i g h t - d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s from e i t h e r approach are analyzed for f l i g h t anomalies and compared with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s t o o b t a i n a measure of how w e l l t h e v e h i c l e performed. These comparisons also provide a check on wind-'tunnel-to-f l i g h t - p r e d i c t i o n techniques which i n t u r n a l l o w s an expansion of the STS f l i g h t envelope on a f l i g h t - t o - f l i g h t b a s i s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d r e s u l t s have proven u s e f u l f o r comparison with t h e o r y v i a comparisons with r e s u l t s from v a r i o u s Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) codes.

474

Two b a s i c types of parameters are common t o both t h e d e t e r m i n i s t i c and e s t i m a t i o n approaches. They a r e t h e measured parameters ( a c c e l e r ; i t i o n s , rates, and atmospheric p r e s s u r e , d e n s i t y , temperature, and winds) and t h e t r a j e c t o r y r e l a t e d parameters such as a l t i t u d e , v e l o c i t y , a t t i t u d e , dynamic p r e s s u r e , Mach number, etc. The t r a j e c t o r y parameters come from a p o s t f l i g h t recons t r u c t i o n of the e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y , u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as the BET or Best E s t i m a t e d T r a j e c t o r y . Each of t h e s e two t y p e s of parameters i s r e s p e c t i v e l y discussed i n t h e following two s e c t i o n s of t h i s paper.
A c c e l e r a t i o n s and Kates Onboard measurements of t h e S h u t t l e a c c e l e r a t i o n s and rates a r e fundamental t o a l l of t h e r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s paper and a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 1, which a l s o shows t h e body a x i s system used i n t h i s paper. There are t h r e e p o s s i b l e sources of these measurements from the v a r i o u s S h u t t l e onboard i n s t r u m e n t s , each of which h a s i t s own merits. The f i r s t s o u r c e , known as t h e Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t Instrumentation Package (ACIP), measures t h e t h r e e components of linear and angular a c c e l e r a t i o n s and t h e t h r e e components of angular v e l o c i t y . The t r i p l y redundant I n e r t i a l Measuring Units ( I M U ) c o n s t i t u t e a second s o u r c e , and a t h i r d source f o r l i n e a r a c c e l e r a t i o n s and angular rates i s t h e Rate Gyro and Accelerometer Assembly (RGA,AA). The r e l a t i v e merits of each of these sources have been discussed i n d e t a i l i n r e f e r e n c e 4. Thus i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o say t h a t the A C I P has a r e s o l u t i o n (1 percent f u l l - s c a l e ) and measurement frequency ( 170 Hz) designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r analyses of S h u t t l e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l . The IMU's are high-f i d e l i t y instruments designed f o r space n a v i g a t i o n and have performed They have a l s o been used f o r postextremely w e l l i n t h e intended t a s k s . f l i g h t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y and i n some cases f o r a n a l y s e s of s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l . The RGA,AA instruments are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e f l i g h t guidance and c o n t r o l but have been pressed i n t o s e r v i c e f o r s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l a n a l y s e s i n l i e u of ACIP. However, the R G A , U does not have a l o n g i t u d i n a l ( X a x i s ) accelerometer and when used f o r s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l work m u s t b e augmented by l o n g i t u d i n a l a c c e l e r a t i o n s from t h e W U . Examples of t h e measured a c c e l e r a t i o n s and rates are given i n f i g u r e 2,
which s h o w s t h e body a x i s l i n e a r accelerations and angular rates from STS-5 as

'

a function of time.

Similar information is shown i n r e f e r e n c e ,5 f o r t h e

previous f o u r f l i g h t s .

Best E s t imated T r a j e c t o r y (BET) I n o r d e r t o make e i t h e r a d e t e r m i n i s t i c o r s t a t i s t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n of the aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s and t o compare them with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s , an a c c u r a t e knowledge of the t r a j e c t o r y a i r - r e l a t i v e parameters is required. Thus t h e STS e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y was r e c o n s t r u c t e d p o s t f l i g h t f o r each of the f i r s t f i v e STS f l i g h t s . The approach chosen f o r t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n was unique i n t h a t p r i o r knowledge of t h e STS aerodynamics and the e n t r y atmosphere was not r e q u i r e d . In f a c t , t h i s s e p a r a t i o n of s p a c e c r a f t dynamics, s p a c e c r a f t aerodynamics, and t h e ambient atmosphere a f f o r d e d t h e independent assessment of v e h i c l e performance, and s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l .
f light-derived

4 75

The b a s i c r e c o n s t r u c t i o n approach begins with an assumed set of i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n s and proceeds with an i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e onboard measurements of a c c e l e r a t i o n and rates t o o b t a i n a t r a j e c t o r y . The t r a j e c t o r y is c o n s t r a i n e d i n an i t e r a t i v e - w e i g h t e d l e a s t - s q u a r e s process t o f i t ground-based S-band , C-band, and t h e o d o l i t e t r a c k i n g d a t a . This produces a p l a n e t - r e l a t i v e traject o r y which is then melded with measured ambient atmospheric parameters t o o b t a i n a f i n a l a i r - r e l a t i v e BET ( r e f . 6 ) . P r i o r t o STS-1, i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n process would make use of the ACIP measurement d a t a . The strapped-down (body-axis o r i e n t e d ) A C I P , with i t s high frequency measurement response, seemed a n a t u r a l choice ,for S h u t t l e t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Therefore, t h e E n t r y T r a j e c t o r y Estimation (ENTREE) program was formulated f o r ACIP measurements and t h e a s s o c i a t e d e r r o r models. This formulation was based on t h e assumption t h a t t h e ACIP measurement accuracy would be e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e s p e c i f i e d measurement r e s o l u t i o n . This was not t o be. In f a c t , the A C I P measurement accuracy s p e c i f i c a t i o n s turned out t o be 1 percent of the f u l l s c a l e range of the i n s t r u m e n t , which was f i n e f o r aerodynamic-derivative e x t r a c t i o n . However, parametric analyses showed t h a t t h i s accuracy l e v e l would not be adequate for S h u t t l e t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and thus i t became n e c e s s a r y t o s e a r c h f o r a l t e r n a t i v e sources f o r t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n and rate measurements. Whatever w a s chosen had t o be usable i n the ENTREE program. There w a s not s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o completely reformulate a l l software. The l M U s w e r e finally s e t t l e d upon and preprocessing programs were b u i l t which r e f o r m a t t e d t h e i n e r t i a l output from the IMUs t o e m u l a t e ACIP measurements (ref. 7). It w a s a l s o necessary t o rework the b a s i c e r r o r models t o allow t h e use of IMU d a t a i n t h e strapped-down ENTREE program. This was perhaps t h e f i r s t l e s s o n learned; i . e . , a n t i c i p a t i o n of what w a s not t o b e .

.

As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e a i r - r e l a t i v e t r a j e c t o r y parameters are obtained by combining measured values of the ambient-atmosphere parameters with t h e p l a n e t - r e l a t i v e t r a j e c t o r y . The source of t h e s e measurements was g e n e r a l l y through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They w e r e o b t a i n e d by NOAA v i a v a r i o u s types of atmospheric probes (rawinsondes, d a t a s o n d e s , robin s p h e r e s , e t c . ) launched as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e t o t h e time of e n t r y and the v e h i c l e - e n t r y ground t r a c k . However, t h e measurements are f u r t h e r analyzed a t the L a R C using t h e Langley Atmospheric Information R e t r i e v a l System (LAIRS) program t o account f o r proper s p a t i a l , d i u r n a l , and s e m i d i u r n a l c o r r e c t i o n s ( r e f . 8). Included with t h e N O M measurements were measured v a l u e s of wind speed and d i r e c t i o n s . These measurements were g e n e r a l i y good except f o r regions i n the lower a l t i t u d e s where even smaii p r e v a i l i n g winds can combine with l a r g e g u s t s t o produce l a r g e e r r o r s i n some of t h e atmosphere-related parameters such as angle of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p ( r e f . 9 ) . In a d d i t i o n , wind speed and d i r e c t i o n are u s u a l l y not s t a b l e even f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e , e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e S h u t t l e landing s i t e . Thus one can expect c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n s of the p r e v a i l i n g winds from the time of Hence i n a l l cases a f t e r each f l i g h t , considermeasurement t o landing t i m e . a b l e e f f o r t w a s made t o i n s u r e a BET based on an a c c u r a t e wind a n a l y s i s . I n f a c t , wind-estimation techniques were formulated using measurements of a , 5 , and t r u e a i r speed, VT, from t h e onboard Air Data System (ADS) measurements ( r e f . 10). These estimates were u s u a l l y confined t o a l t i t u d e s below 50,000 f e e t because of l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e ADS o p e r a t i o n s and accuracy, but t h i s included the region f o r c r i t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e knowledge of t h e winds. At higher a l t i t u d e s t h e effect of winds i s not so important because t h e spacecraft.

476

v e l o c i t y u s u a l l y is very l a r g e compared t o wind v e l o c i t y thus tending t o In any c a s e , the e s t i m a t e d winds are compared minimize wind p e r t u r b a t i o n s . w i t h t h e measured winds and a j u d i c i o u s choice of which t o use i n t h e BET i s made.

It is e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y a t t h e epoch t i m e i s a c c u r a t e t o less than 500.0 f e e t and 0.5 f e e t p e r second. The corresponding a c c u r a c i e s near touchdown are 5.0 f e e t and 0.2 f e e t per second. The spacec r a f t a t t i t u d e is known t o within 0.1 degrees through t h e e n t r y . S i d e s l i p and a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k e r r o r s are each approximately 0.1 degrees a t t h e h i g h e r a l t i t u d e s , but i n t h e lower a l t i t u d e s , from approximately 50,000 f e e t down, could be as l a r g e as 0.5 degrees. Again t h i s lower a l t i t u d e region is where wind u n c e r t a i n t i e s have t h e l a r g e s t e f f e c t s . The e r r o r s quoted i n t h i s paragraph are e q u i v a l e n t t o one standard d e v i a t i o n , a.
Generally the nominal-entry f l i g h t path and dynamics f o r each of the f i v e STS f l i g h t s have been very s i m i l a r except t h a t STS-3 landed a t an a l t e r n a t e e landing s i t e i n White Sands, N w Mexico. They each made a g l i d i n g e n t r y from d e o r b i t t o touchdown with an e n t r y angle of a t t a c k a t 400,000 f e e t of about 40 degrees. The angle of a t t a c k was held constant t o about 175,000 f e e t (Mach 13.5) a t which time the spacecraft was g r a d u a l l y p i t c h e d down t o a n g l e s of a t t a c k of about 10 degrees a t 75,000 f e e t (Mach 1.5). The e n t r y ground t r a c k from STS-4 i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 3 along with p e r t i n e n t ground-based t r a c k i n g coverage. The f i g u r e shows t i m e and a l t i t u d e marks throughout t h e e n t r y where t i m e i s t r a j e c t o r y t i m e from an epoch of 55821 (;MT seconds from midnight on t h e day of landing. This t r a c k is t y p i c a l of t h e f i v e f l i g h t s . Usually e i t h e r Guam or the H a w a i i S-band t r a c k i n g s t a t i o n provided e x c e l l e n t coverage a t t h e higher a l t i t u d e region between 475,000 and 700,000 f e e t , whereas t h e C-band network gave continuous o v e r l a p coverage at a l t i t u d e s below approximately 170,000 f e e t . No ground-based t r a c k i n g was a v a i l a b l e between approximately 170,000 f e e t and 450,000 f e e t . To d a t e t h i s has not proven t o The approach and be a s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n f o r the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n process. l a n d i n g ground t r a c k from C-band a c q u i s i t i o n t o touchdown is i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 4 , which a l s o shows the heading alignment c i r c l e and t h e v a r i o u s t h e o d o l i t e camera-tracking s t a t i o n s . Again t i m e and a l t i t u d e marks are given t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e t r a c k i n g coverage from the v a r i o u s s t a t i o n s .
Some of the e n t r y trajectory parameters from

STS-4 are shown i n f i g u r e s

5, 6 , and 7.

angle ( y ) , angle of a t t a c k (a), angle of s i d e s l i p ( B ) , dynamic p r e s s u r e (q), and Mach number (M). These parameters are t y p i c a l of each of t h e f i v e STS f l i g h t s . This w i l l be discussed i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n of t h e p a p e r .

They are a l t i t u d e ( h ) , air-relative v e l o c i t y (VA), f l i g h t path

STS PERFORMANCE General Discussion F l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the body axes t o t a l f o r c e and moment coeff i c i e n t s are determined using t h e BET parameters, which i n c l u d e t h e remotely measured atmosphere, combined with t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n s and angular rates measured by t h e IMUs. They a r e determined i n each i n s t a n c e over t h e Mach range from about 0.5 t o 26.0 and a r e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d d e t e r m i n i s t i c

477

c a l c u l a t i o n s using t h e basic aerodynamic f o r c e and moment equations. For equations can be example, t h e normal-force (CN) and pitching-moment (C,) w r i t t e n as

cN

where t h e mass (m), r e f e r e n c e area (S), chord (C), and i n e r t i a moments (Ixx, ____ Izz, h Z ) are known from engineering d a t a . The a i r - r e l a t i v e v e l o c i t y (vA) i s obtained from t r a j e c t o r y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e atmospheric d e n s i t y ( p ) from t h e measured atmosphere, and t h e remaining a c c e l e r a t i o n and r a t e terms. (AzB, p , q , K ) from I M U measurements. Only t h e cross-product i n e r t i a term Ixz is r e t a i n e d i n e q u a t i o n ( 2 ) s i n c e t h e o t h e r terms are assumed n e g l i g i b l e . S i m i l a r expressions hold for the remaining bodv axes f o r c e and moment e q u a t i o n s .
One can see t h a t t h e f o r c e s and moments are i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e d e n s i t y and t h e s q u a r e of t h e v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e measured a c c e l e r a t i o n s and rates. Because of t h e q u a l i t y of the o t h e r t e r m s i n e q u a t i o n s (1) and ( 2 ) i t i s g e n e r a l l y thought t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l e r r o r s o u r c e i n the e x t r a c t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s is t h e measured d e n s i t y which has been e s t i m a t e d by M . M1 Gelman of N O M t o be known t o w i t h i n + 7 percent. r e of the f l i g h t s However, i t w i l l be shown l a t e r i n very l o c a l regions on S&E t h a t comparisons with t h e p r e f l i g h t data book ( r e f . 11) i n d i c a t e c o e f f i c i e n t I n f a c t , the d i s c u s s i o n s l e a d t o d i s c r e p a n c i e s which f a r exceed 7 percent. p o s t u l a t e s of d e n s i t y s h e a r s o r s p a c e c r a f t flow-f i e l d phenomena.

The S h u t t l e p r e f l i g h t data-book values of t h e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s r e p r e s e n t t h e primary benchmark f o r comparisons with t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s . This d a t a base r e p r e s e n t s an assembly of some 27,000 hours of wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g ( r e , f . 1 2 ) and i s t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e information f o r e x t r a p o l a t i n g test d a t a t o f l i g h t conditions. It a l s o provides a measure of u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d with t h e d a t a base v i a t h e concept of v a r i a t i o n s ( r e f . 1 3 ) . The v a r i a t i o n s are based on d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s experienced by previous a i r c r a f t and e x t r a p o l a t e d t o t h e STS c o n f i g u r a t i o n and f l i g h t environment. In a s e n s e they r e p r e s e n t t h e f l i g h t envelope f o r S h u t t l e and suggest t h e l e v e l of improvement t h a t might be obtained v i a f l i g h t - d e r i v e d r e s u l t s . The v e r s i o n of t h e d a t a base used i n t h i s paper was provided b y Yr. R. Powell a t t h e LaRC ( r e f . 1 1 ) . A s s t a t e d by Findlay and Compton ( r e f . 5 ) only t h e a i l e r o n and rudder e f f e c t s a r e modeled as l i n e a r cont r o l l e r s . Due t o n o n l i n e a r i t i e s , incrementals f o r e l e v a t o r , body f l a p s , and speed b r a k e s a r e modeled. The model provides f o r b a s i c airframe aerodynamics (assuming u n d e f l e c t e d c o n t r o l s ) t o which t h e v a r i o u s c o n t r o l increments a r e added.

478

L i f t and Drag
Since t h e data-base p r e d i c t i o n s have been developed i n terms of l i f t and drag c o e f f i c i e n t s , t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s have been r o t a t e d t o t h e s t a b i l i t y axis t o o b t a i n t h e corresponding CL and CD c o e f f i c i e n t s . The BET a was used i n t h e r o t a t i o n s and i s estimated t o be a c c u r a t e t o w i t h i n 0.2 degrees. The l i f t and drag performance f o r a l l f i v e f l i g h t s i s summarized i n f i g u r e s 8-13. The c o e f f i c i e n t s have been compared with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s , and the comparison i s shown on each f i g u r e v i a p e r c e n t i l e d i f f e r e n c e s between the f l i g h t and data-book v a l u e s , i.e., f l i g h t The ACL and ACD p l o t s include t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i minus d a t a book. a t e d with t h e d a t a book i n terms of v a r i a t i o n s . It should be noted again t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t t h e approximate maximum l e v e l of improvement t h a t one could expect t o o b t a i n from t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s . Also shown i n f i g u r e s 11 and 12 a r e t h e a c t u a l values of t h e f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d I J D , CL, and CD f o r STS-4 and 5. Values f o r STS-1, 2 , and 3 have been p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n by Compton e t a l . i n r e f e r e n c e 4 . Considering f i r s t t h e l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o , one can see a very c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n from f l i g h t . t o f l i g h t . F i r s t , the f l i g h t and d a t a book are i n e x c e l l e n t agreement throughout the supersonic and hypersonic regime. Second, t h e s e n s e of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s shown i s such t h a t t h e LID is s l i g h t l y underpred i c t e d i n t h e hypersonic regime and s l i g h t l y overpredicted i n the s u p e r s o n i c region where s u p e r s o n i c has been somewhat a r b i t r a r i l y picked t o be less t h a n Mach 6. Shown on each of t h e p l o t s is the mean (p) and standard d e v i a t i o n (0) OE t h e d i f f e r e n c e s over both the supersonic and hypersonic regime. These s t a t i s t i c s have been included i n Table I which a l s o shows the mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r t h e hypersonic regime e x c l u s i v e l y f o r each f l i g h t and t h e corresponding means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e ensemble of f l i g h t s . The ensemble s t a t i s t i c s show t h a t t h e mean L/D d i f f e r e n c e over both the supers o n i c and hypersonic region is 0.69 1.24 percent. Above Mach 6 t h e mean and Thus one can s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n are r e s p e c t i v e l y i . 1 6 and 0.51 percent. conclude t h a t L/D i s g e n e r a l l y known t o within 2.0 percent.

+

The c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s and d i f f e r e n c e s noted f o r L/D cannot be seen f l i g h t t o f l i g h t f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l CL and CD c o e f f i c i e n t s except t h a t u s u a l l y the sense of differences i s such t h a t t h e coefficients were overpredicted.

The flight results seem to fall into t w o categories.

First, w i t h the

eKception of a narrow region on STS-1 (Mach 18 t o 201, f l i g h t s 1, 3, and 5 d i f f e r e n c e s were w e l l w i t h i n v a r i a t i o n s over both the supersonic and hypers o n i c regime. Second, STS-2 and 4 d i f f e r e n c e s e x h i b i t e d very r a d i c a l depart u r e s from p r e d i c t i o n s above approximarely Mach 20. It w i l l be noted l a t e r t’iat even STS-3 showed some of t h i s r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e when using from t h e

<

NOAA-measured atmosphere. Over t h e e n t i r e f l i g h t regime from Mach 2 t o 26 t h e ensemble s t a t i s t i c s show t h a t t h e CL and CD mean d i f f e r e n c e s are -4.50 4.38 p e r c e n t and - 5 . 2 4 2 4 . 5 5 percent, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In t h e a l t i t u d e i F t e r v a l below Mach 2 0 (60,000 f t < h < 220,000 f t ) t h e computed mean d i f f e r e n c e s a r e -3.3 k 2.5 p e r c e n t and -3.7 f 2 . 4 percent for CL and CD, r e s p e c t i v e l y ( r e f . 5 ) . Above Mach 20, where t h e large d i s c r e p a n c i e s were noted on STS-2 and 4, similar computations y i e l d -9.0 6.1 percent and -10 6.1 percent f o r t h e l i f t and drag s t a t i s t i c s . In some cases f o r STS-2 and-4 t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s were a:; much as 25 percent o v e r p r e d i c t e d .

+

+

+

479

For e a c h of t h e f i v e f l i g h t s , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e h y p e r s o n i c p r e d i c t e d t r i m w i t h t h e known c o n t r o l - s u r f a c e d e f l e c t i o n s and t h a t d e r i v e d from f l i g h t w a s n o t e d . F i g u r e 14, which shows C , , from STS-5 ,r e f e r e n c e d t o t h e f l i g h t c . g . a s a f u n c t i o n of Mach number i s t y p i c a ' l of a l l five flights. The maximum d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y Mach 16 and i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s t a n t a t 0.03 up t o Mach 26 (0.035 on STS-2 and 3 ) . Below Mach 16 t h e d i f f e r e n c e d e c r e a s e s t o about 0.002 a t Mach 8 and remains c o n s t a n t a t t h a t v a l u e t h r o u g h Mach 2. E a r l y s p e c u l a t i o n s on t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u d e (1) o v e r p r e d i c t i o n of body f l a p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , ( 2 ) u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n c . g . l o c a t i o n , ( 3 ) r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s , and ( 4 ) e r r o r s i n t h e p r e d i c t e d b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment. C u r r e n t t h i n k i n g is t h a t i t is an e r r o r i n t h e b a s i c pitching-moment p r e d i c t i o n due p r i m a r i l y t o r e a l - g a s and Mach-number e f f e c t s . The Air Force F l i g h t T e s t C e n t e r has shown t h a t w i t h an updated i n theFr simulation t h a t t h e y a r e a b l e t o o b t a i n good agreement between s i m u l a t o r p r e d i c t i o n s and flight-derived characteristics. In a d d i t i o n , t h e y have shown t h a t body f l a p and e l e v o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s a g r e e w e l l w i t h p r e f l i g h t test r e s u l t s ( r e f . 1 6 ) . The f i n d i n g s of Maus et al. ( r e f . 17) tend t o s u p p o r t t h e C, e r r o r . They show t h a t r e a l - g a s and Mach-number e f f e c t s on C, a t f l i g h t Oconditions a r e on t h e o r d e r of 0.022. Using t h e Mach-number an8 r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s as c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e wind t u n n e l t h e y work backward t o show t h e body-flap d e f l e c t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o t r i m t h e S h u t t l e v e h i c l e a t t h e h i g h a n g l e s of a t t a c k . T h e i r r e s u l t s a g r e e w i t h t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d body-flap d e f l e c t i o n s t o w i t h i n 2 d e g r e e s . Thus i t would a p p e a r t h a t r e a l - g a s and Mach-number e f f e c t s a r e p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e f l i g h t compared t o data-book d i f f e r e n c e s shown i n f i g u r e 14. However, it s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t ed i n f i g u r e 14 a t the h i g h Mach numbers are on t h e o r d e r of 0.03 o r a p p r o x i 'mately 30 p e r c e n t l a r g e r t h a n t h e r e a l - g a s and Mach-number e f f c c t and as y e t a r e unaccounted f o r . This may be due t o t h e v i n t a g e data-book v a l u e s t h a t were used f o r comparisons o r may, i n f a c t , i n d i c a t e t h a t c o n t r o l s u r f a c e e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s s l i g h t l y o v e r p r e d i c t e d . Some p r e l i m i n a r y c a l c u l a t i o n s t e n d t o s u p p o r t a c o m b i n a t i o n of r e a l - g a s , Mach-number, and c o n t r o l - s u r f a c e e f f e c t s a s t h e c a u s e f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s shown i n f i g u r e 14, t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t of which i s due t o r e a l - g a s and Mach-number e f f e c t s .

(L)

%

LATERAL STABILITY AND CONTROL

General D i s c u s s i o n F l i g h t - e x t r a c t e d l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n t h e r e m a i n i n g s e c t i o n s of t h i s p a p e r . In most cases t h e e s t i m a t e d s t a b i l i t y snd c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s have been o b t a i n e d u s i n g t h e Modified Maximum L i k e l i This nood E s t i m a t i o n (MMLE-3) program developed by I l i f f and Maine ( r e f . 18). program has had widespread u s e i n t h e S h u t t l e f l i g h t - d a t a a n a l y s i s u s e r 2ommunity i n a d d i t i o n t o numerous a p p l i c a t i o n s t o commercial and m i l i t a r y a i r :raft. However, t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from MMLE o f t e n r e f l e c t t h e e x p e r i e n c e t h e a n a l y s t , h i s c h o i c e of i n p u t d a t a , and t h e program o p t i o n s which are s e d . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h e a u t h o r s have used i n d e p e n d e n t methods and programs 9s w e l l as a l t e r n a t e d a t a s o u r c e s t o p r o v i d e b a l a n c e s and checks on t h e MMLE solutions. T h i s has been d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n r e f e r e n c e 4 , and o n l y a few of t h e s e a l t e r n a t e r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s paper.
l o f

48 1

With few e x c e p t i o n s , t h e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l r e s u l t s were e s t i m a t e d fixed at the assuming t h e r o t a r y d e r i v a t i v e s f i x e d a t z e r o and Cy 6a p r e f l i g h t data-book v a l u e of 0.00042 p e r d e g r e e . The NMLC o p t i o n f o r e s t i m a t i n g t h e w e i g h t i n g m a t r i x w a s used. All mass p r o p e r t i e s and c.g. i n f o r m a t i o n were p r o v i d e d by t h e Johnson Space C e n t e r (JSC).
The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e paper have been d e r i v e d u s i n g o n l y t h e Programed T e s t I n p u t s ( P T I ' s ) from f l i g h t s 2 , 3, 4 , and 5. There were no PTI's on STS-1. Although t h e r e were bank r e v e r s a l maneuvers f o r e n e r g y management on e a c h f l i g h t and a s t r o n a u t s t i c k - i n p u t maneuvers on some of t h e f l i g h t s , t h e PTI's which are performed a u t o m a t i c a l l y by t h e v e h i c l e are c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e most optimum f o r s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l e s t i m a t i o n . The f l i g h t - d e r i v e d r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d a l o n g w i t h e q u i v a l e n t p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s and v a r i a t i o n s a l l c o r r e c t e d t o t h e f l i g h t c.g.

Lateral-Directional
C

Derivatives

Both f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s i n f i g u r e 15 as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number. of C are shown a l o n g w i t h v a r i a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r e d i c t e d values. I n a d d i t i o n , as w i l l be t h e case for a l l r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s p a p e r , t h e C r a m e r - b o bounds associated w i t h t h e flight data m u l t i p l i e d by a f a c t o r of 10 a r e shown i n t h e figure.. I t should h e n o t e d t h a t t h e t r u e Cramer-Rao bound i s t h e lower l i m i t of t h e v a r i a n c e s of t h e estimated p a r a m e t e r s and i s t h e measure of e f f i c i e n c y of a n e s t i m a t o r . The f a c t o r o f 10 i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d as a c o n s e r v a t i v e m u l t i p l i c a t i v e f a c t o r for a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h STS e x t r a c t i o n r e s u l t s . If one i g n o r e s t h e o b v i o u s o u t l i e r s shown i n f i g u r e 15 i n t h e r e g i o n below Mach 5 , t h e s o l u t i o n s f o r CR, are f o r t h e most p a r t w e l l w i t h i n

%-

The r o l l i n g moment due t o t h e a n g l e of s i d e s l i p is p r e s e n t e d

B

predicted variations. In t h e r e g i o n above Mach 8, t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a d e f i n i t e Mach number e f f e c t , c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s . I n t h i s same r e g i o n t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s are s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d i n d i c a t i n g l e s s t h a n p r e d i c t e d s t a b i l i t y . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were r e p o r t e d by K i r s t e n e t a l . ( r e f . 1 6 ) and Elaine and I l i f f ( r e f . 1 9 ) . I n t h e Nach 25 r e g i o n t h e f l i g h t results were e s t i m a t e d using maneuvers i n t h e v e r y low (4-10 p s f ) r e g i o n where i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o estimate t h e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s , and t h i s may p a r t i a l l y a c c o u n t f o r them b e i n g o u t s i d e of v a r i a t i o n s . Below Mach'8, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e i n t e r v a l below Mach 4 , t h e s o l u t i o n s are v e r y s c a t t e r e d making i t d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r e n d i n t h e f l i g h t d a t a . However, STS-2 r e s u l t s would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e v e h i c l e i s more s t a b l e t h a n p r e d i c t e d : i . e . , more n e g a t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . The STS-5 r e s u l t s would i n d i c a t e v a l u e s s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d , but i t is known i n some cases t h a t r e a s o n a b l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s e x i s t between some of t h e e s t i m a t e d p a r a m e t e r s f o r STS-5. For example, a t Mach 2 1 . 5 - C Q is h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h CQ and Cg ; i . e . , w i t h r o l l due t o a i l e r o n B and t h e RCS j e t s . These Rfgh corrh!ations could degrade some of t h e The scatter i n t h e s o l u t i o n s and are s t i l l being a n a l y z e d a t t h i s t i m e . s o l u t i o n s below Mach 4 i s l i k e l y due t o c o u p l i n g s i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n s o f t w a r e

[math model) r e s u l t i n g i n s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e v a r i o u s c o n t r o l - s u r f a c e parameters t h a t are being estimated. Quite o f t e n i n t h i s :region t h e v a r i o u s c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s are simultaneously a c t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y t h e rudder and a i l e r o n . With t h e present c o n t r o l s y s t e m , i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o perform maneuvers which i s o l a t e one c o n t r o l s u r f a c e a t a t i m e , and thus i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e e x t r a c t i o n program t o a c c u r a t e l y a l l o c a t e the e f f e c t s of each s u r f a c e . The r e s u l t s shown i n f i g u r e 15 by the c i r c l e symbols with d o t s finside are i n d i c a t i v e of such c a s e s . For these cases s o l u t i o n s were obtained which included t h e rudder parameters. These r e s u l t s can be compared t o t h e open symbols f o r t h e same maneuver where rudder parameters were not estimated. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s o l u t i o n s can be noted. It should also be noted t h a t t h e r e are a few o t h e r cases where more than one s o l u t i o n is shown f o r t h e same maneuver. This u s u a l l y r e s u l t s from d i v i d i n g a maneuver i n t o two segments o r from using an a l t e r n a t e computer program with a d i f f e r e n t a n a l y s t e s t i m a t i n g the c o e f f i c i e n t s . In terms of l e s s o n s l e a r n e d , the ACIP measurements were not a v a i l a b l e from STS-2 due t o f l i g h t recorder problems, and yet we were a b l e t o o b t a i n Epod l a t e r a l s o l u t i o n s using the RGA,AA measurements.

.- F l i g h t r e s u l t s f o r t h e yawing moment due t o s i d e s l i p shown i n cn 0 f i g u r e 16 p r e s e n t a p a t t e r n s i m i l a r t o t h a t given f o r CQ i n t h a t s o l u B t i o n s above Mach 8 a r e g e n e r a l l y w e l l within v a r i a t i o n s and s o l u t i o n s below Nach 8 e s p e c i a l l y from Mach 4 down are very s c a t t e r e d and sometimes o u t s i d e of v a r i a t i o n s . The e r r o r bounds i n t h i s region are a l s o very l a r g e . Values above Mach 8 are more negative than p r e d i c t e d and below Mach 8 more o s i t i v e . In the higher Mach region, t h i s i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o what has Of been given i n r e f e r e n c e s 19 and 20 where i t is shown t h a t C, i s s l i g h t l y 0 more p o s i t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d . Reasons f o r t h i s discrepancy are not known a t t h i s t i m e except one could argue t h a t e r r o r bounds a s s o c i a t e d with t h e t h r e e s o l u t i o n sets are such as t o o v e r l a p the v a r i o u s s o l u t i o n s . A reasonable f a i r i n g of t h e values above Mach 8 would not show t h e constancy i n d i c a t e d by the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s .

"B

Ctga.-

The r o l l i n g moment due t o a i l e r o n is presented i n f i g u r e 17.

Ignoring t h e obvious o u t l i e r s b e l o w Mach 4 and the solutions outside of

v a r i a t i o n s above Mach 4 , the solutions compare very well with t h e d a t a book. The t r e n d below approximately Mach 5 shows a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s t o be s l i g h t l y less than p r e d i c t e d . Above Mach 5 and ignoring r e s u l t s o u t s i d e of v a r i a t i o n s , t h e a t l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s g e n e r a l l y agrees with the d a t a book with some i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the a i l e r o n s may be s l i g h t l y more e f f e c t i v e than p r e d i c t e d . However, one must be c a r e f u l here s i n c e the data-book values used for a l l t h e comparisons have been taken from f l i g h t 5 and a r e n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e o t h e r f l i g h t s . In f a c t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l f l i g h t comparisons shown i n r e f e r e n c e 4 f o r a l l maneuvers on f l i g h t s 1, 2, and 3 tend t o support a s l i g h t l y less than p r e d i c t e d a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s throughout the f l i g h t . I i n f a c t t h e a i l e r o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n the Mach 1 t o Mach 3 region proves t o : E be less t h a n p r e d i c t e d , i t may be t h e cause of the small amplitude l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n a l o s c i l l a t i o n ( r e f . 19) t h a t has been noted i n t h i s f l i g h t regime. However, a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s i s required t o s u b s t a n t i a t e such a conclusion.

483

Cn6a.-

F i g u r e 18 shows yaw due t o a i l e r o n .

The many o u t l i e r s and

l a r g e Cramer-bo bounds are i n d i c a t i v e of t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t i m a t i n g t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t . Above Mach 5 t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s a g r e e r e a s o n a b l y w e l l w i t h t h e d a t a book. The f l i g h t 2 r e s u l t s tend t o s u p p o r t yaw-aileron e f f e c t i v e n e s s less t h a n p r e d i c t e d . F l i g h t 3 r e s u l t s are a l i t t l e more n e g a t i v e t h a n t h o s e f o r f l i g h t 2 and a r e p e r h a p s due t o a more downward d e f l e c t i o n of t h e elevators. The f l i g h t 4 values a p p e a r to be o u t l i e r s i n e v e r y case. T h i s may be p a r t i a l l y due t o t h e d e n s i t y problem p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , but i t is n o t c l e a r a t t h i s t i m e why t h i s o c c u r s and i s s t i l l under i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e a u t h o r s . The r e s u l t s shown h e r e are i n no way c o n c l u s i v e . A more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s is r e q u i r e d t o a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e C, 6a The l a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r u d d e r have been r e p o r t e d i n r e f e r e n c e 4 and no new i n f o r m a t i o n has been o b t a i n e d t o d a t e f o r t h e s e It was c o e f f i c i e n t s . Recall t h a t t h e r u d d e r i s o n l y a c t i v e below Mach 3 . 5 . ) i s c l o s e t o what h a s been shown' t h a t r o l l due t o t h e r u d d e r (Ca6 r predicted. However, i n t h e Mach 1.5 t o 2.5 r e g i o n t h e yaw due t o r u d d e r (Cnsr) shows less e f f e c t i v e n e s s t h a n p r e d i c t e d b u t a g r e e s v e r y w e l l w i t h predictions i n t h e c l o s e v i c i n i t y of Mach 1 and Mach 3.
LATERAL REACTION CONTKOL JET EFFECTIVENESS

General D i s c u s s i o n

The RCS j e t s have been modeled i n MMLE as i f they are a n o t h e r aerodynamic c o n t r o l l e r and s o l u t i o n s are o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e speed range f o r t h e s i d e f o r c e , r o l l i n g moment, and yawing moment due t o yaw-jet f i r i n g s . FOK t h e p u r p o s e s of t h i s p a p e r , t h e yaw-jet e v a l u a t i o n is p r e s e n t e d as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number on a p e r j e t b a s i s . Comparisons are made t o p r e f l i g h t v a l u e s which are based on known vacuum t h r u s t c o r r e c t e d f o r altitude effects. S i n c e t h e a l t i t u d e p r o f i l e s are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r e a c h f l i g h t , two sets of p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s (STS-2 and 4 ) are n o t e d on t h e plots i n the following section.

RCS Derivatives
The s i d e f o r c e due t o a yaw-jet f i r i n g is shown i n f i g u r e 19 cY6 J as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number. The p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s are on a per j e t b a s i s and s i n c e t h e y are based on a known t h r u s t per j e t , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p r e d i c t e d and f l i g h t can be a t t r i b u t e d t o j e t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . Here t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s are d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e t h e combination of flow-f i e l d i n t e r a c t i o n s and v e h i c l e impingements. The f l i g h t r e s u l t s are i n v e r y good agreement w i t h t h e p r e d i c t e d s i d e f o r c e even though s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e e r r o r bounds are shown f o r t h e estimates. These u n c e r t a i n t i e s should not d e t r a c t from t h e goodness of t h e r e s u l t s s i n c e t h e y are due p r i m a r i l y t o t h e small s i g n a l - t o - n o i s e r a t i o i n t h e d a t a f o r e s t i m a t i n g s i d e f o r c e . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e yaw j e t s are a l i t t l e more t h a n 100 p e r c e n t e f f e c t i v e i n terms of s i d e f o r c e . T h i s is perhaps due t o i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , but w i t h

.-

484

t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s as shown one can conclude t h a t RCS s i d e - f o r c e j e t e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s v i r t u a l l y 100 percent. The yawing moment due t o a yaw j e t f i r i n g shown i n f i g u r e 20 C “6J and t h e r e s u l t s obtained has been e v a l u a t e d i n t h e same manner as Cy 6J’ a.re v e r y similar i n t h a t they agree very w e l l with the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s , u.sually w i t h i n 10 percent. However, the u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f l i g h t d e r i v e d ksJare s u b s t a n t i a l l y smaller. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e yaw jets are from 90 t o 100 percent e f f e c t i v e i n terms of yawing moment produced

.-

.

C Q & ~ . -Evaluations of t h e r o l l i n g moment due t o a yaw j e t p r e s e n t a

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t s t o r y as can be seen i n f i g u r e 21. Here t h e d i f f e r ence between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d values i n d i c a t e s l a r g e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s which vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y over t h e Mach-number range. Determinations of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s have v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y among t h e v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s and i n many cases d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s . No a t t e m p t is made h e r e t o compare the i n t e r a c t i o n s with t h e d a t a book, but one can q u i c k l y see t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n s . In f a c t , i t is tempting here t o s t a t e t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e w e l l determined from t h e s e r e s u l t s . However, i t appears t o be more prudent t o search f o r o t h e r means of v e r i f y i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n s . This has been attempted by using t h e DFL p r e s s u r e measurements on t h e upper s u r f a c e of t h e wing from STS-3 and STS-5. The d e t a i l s of t h i s process a r e given i n r e f e r e n c e 21 where i t is shown t h a t t h e measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e u p p e r wing s u r f a c e is i n t e g r a t e d both chordwise and spanwise t o o b t a i n a d i r e c t experimental c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . This can be added t o t h e i n f i g u r e 21 t o o b t a i n a C which can be d i r e c t l y predicted C %J %5J compared with t h e estimated f l i g h t r e s u l t s . This c a l c u l a t i o n has been completed f o r a l i m i t e d number of cases and is shown on f i g u r e 2 1 a s t h e s o l i d symbols. The agreement with the o t h e r s o l u t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e D F I p r e s s u r e measurements may be an e x c e l l e n t way f o r determining t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s and t h a t the estimated i n t e r a c t i o n s are reasonable.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The STS aerodynamic performance and s t a b i l i t y have been analyzed over t h e speed range from Mach 2 t o 26 using f l i g h t mesaurement d a t a from STS f l i g h t s 1-5. S t a b i l i t y r e s u l t s were obtained using only the P T I ’ s from STS f l i g h t s 2-5. There were no PTI’s on STS-1. Generally, t h e performance and s t a b i l i t y c o r r e l a t e d w e l l with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s . There were some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s noted i n t h e l i f t and drag comparisons with p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s a t t h e higher Mach number. These d i f f e r e n c e s are probably due t o e r r o r s i n t h e measured d e n s i t y but may be due t o a flow-field phenomenon a s yet unexplained. The l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o , which is independent of d e n s i t y , w a s shown t o be i n e x c e l l e n t agreement w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n s over the e n t i r e h.ypersonic regime f o r a l l f i v e f l i g h t s . In t h e very l o c a l i z e d v i c i n i t y of Hsch 4 i n t h e s u p e r s o n i c region, the l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o d i f f e r e n c e was 3 t o 5

485

percent. Vehicle trim anomalies were noted on all five flights with the largest differences occurring above Mach 8. These differences are thought to be due primarily to unpredicted Mach-number and real-gas effects. Stability and control results were usually well within one variation of the data book except in the region below approximately Mach 4 where the flight solutions exhibited quite a bit of scatter and oftentimes large uncertainties. Aileron effectiveness below Mach 3 appears to be slightly less than predicted. The yaw jet evaluation shows that they are virtually 100 percent effective in terms of side force and from 90 to 100 percent effective in terms of yawing moment. This evaluation also indicated significant yaw-jet rolling-moment interactions.

It is felt that estimates of the stability and control derivatives can be improved by a more detailed analysis of each maneuver €or removal of parameter correlations especially in the region below Mach 5 and especially for all those maneuvers from flight 4 . The flight 4 stability results may be biased in the high Mach region by what has been noted as a possible density error or flow-related phenomenon. It i s also felt that additional flight maneuvers are required before comprehensive and meaningful data-book updates to the stability and control derivatives can be made.

486

REFERENCES

1.

Compton, H R., B l a n c h a r d , R. C., and Walberg, G. D.: . An Experiment f o r S h u t t l e Aerodynamic Force C o e f f i c i e n t D e t e r m i n a t i o n From Inf l i g h t Dynamical and Atmospheric Measurements. A M Paper 78-795, 1978. Compton, Harold R., B l a n c h a r d , R. C., and F i n d l a y , John T.: Shuttle E n t r y T r a j e c t o r y R e c o n s t r u c t i o n Using I n f l i g h t Accelerometer and Gyro AIAA Paper 79-0257, 1979. Measurements. J o n e s , J i m J.: OEX--Use of t h e S h u t t l e O r b i t e r as a Research V e h i c l e . AIAA Paper 81-2512, 1981. Compton, Harold R., S c a l l i o n , W. I., S u i t , W. T., and S c h i e s s , J. R.: S h u t t l e E n t r y Performance and S t a b i l i t y and C o n t r o l D e r i v a t i v e s E x t r a c t i o n From F l i g h t Measurement Data. AIAA Paper 82-1317, 1982. F i n d l a y , John T and Compton, Harold R.: . On t h e F l i g h t Derived/ Aerodynamic Data .Base Performance Comparisons f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e E n t r i e s b r i n g t h e Hypersonic Regime. AIAA Paper 83-0115, 1983. F i n d l a y , J. T . , K e l l y , G. M., and Heck, M. L.: F i r s t Space S h u t t l e (STS-I) E n t r y T r a j e c t o r y . K e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e N S CR-3561, 1982. AA

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.
7.

Heck, M. L., F i n d l a y , J. T., K e l l y , G. M., and Compton, H. R.: The A d a p t a t i o n of a S t r a p Down Formulation f o r P r o c e s s i n g I n e r t i a l P l a t f o r m Data. AZAA Paper 82-1332, 1982. P r i c e , Joseph M.: Atmospheric D e f i n i t i o n f o r S h u t t l e I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of S p a c e c r a f t and Rockets, Vol. 20, pp. 133-140, March-April

8.

1983

9 .

Compton, Harold R., F i n d l a y , John T., K e l l y , George M., and Heck, Michael L. : S h u t t l e (STS-1) Entry T r a j e c t o r y R e c o n s t r u c t i o n . AIAA Paper

81-2459, 1981.
10.
Kelly,
G. M e l ;

Findlay, John T.,

and Compton, Harold R.:

Wind Estimation

Using Air Data Probe Measurements t o Evaluate M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Measurements. AZAA Paper 82-1333, 1982.
11.

Aerodynamic Design Data B o o k . 1701. T - r r l i t e r T ' r l - i c l - e . Report No. SD72-SH-0060-TL,Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l , O c t . 1978. Whitnah, Authur M. and H i l l j e , E r n e s t R.: Space S h u t t l e Wind TL,ilnel T e s t i n g Program. AIAA Paper 82-0562, 1982. Young, James C. and Underwood, Jimmy M. : The Development of Aerodynamic U n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r . AIAA Paper 82-0563, 1982. S i e m e r s , P. M. 111, Wolf, H., and Flanagan, P. F.: S h u t t l e E n t r y Air Data System Concepts Applied t o Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r F l i g h t P r e s s u r e Data t o Determine Air Jhta - STS 1-4. AIAA Paper 83-0118, 1983.

12.

13.

14.

487

15.

Leurs, J . K . : A Method of Computing Winds, D e n s i t y , Temperature, P r e s s u r e , and T h e i r Associated E r r o r s From t h e High A l t i t u d e Robin Sphere Using an Optimum F i l t e r . Report No. AFCRL-70-0366, A i r Force Cambridge Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , J u l y 1970. K i r s t e n , P. W., Richardson, D. F., and Wilson, Charles M.: Predicted and F l i g h t T e s t R e s u l t s of the Performance, S t a b i l i t y and Control of the Space S h u t t l e From Reentry t o Landing. S h u t t l e Performance: Lessons Learned, NASA CP-2283, P a r t 1, 1983, pp. 509-524.
Maus, J. R., G r i f f i t h , B. J . , and Szema, K. Y.: Hypersonic Mach Number AIAA P a p e r and Real Gas E f f e c t s on Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Aerodynamics. 83-0343, 1983.

16.

17.

18.

Maine, Richard E. and I l i f f , Kenneth W: . User's Manual f o r MMLE-3, A General FORTRAN Program f o r Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation. N S TP-1563, 1980. AA Maine, R. E. and U i f f , K. W: . Selected S t a b i l i t y and Control D e r i v a t i v e s From t h e F i r s t Three Space S h u t t l e E n t r i e s . AIM P a p e r 82-13 18 1982 K i r s t e n , Paul W. and Richardson, David F.: P r e d i c t e d and F l i g h t T e s t Kesults of t h e Performance and S t a b i l i t y and Control of the Space S h u t t l e From Reentry t o Landing. P a p e r presented a t the AGARD 6 1 s t F l i g h t Mechanics P a n e l s Meeting, Synposium on GroundIFlight T e s t Techniques and C o r r e l a t i o n , Cesme, Turkey, Oct. 11-15, 1982. S c a l l i o n , W. I., Compton, H. R . , S u i t , W. T . , Powell, R. W . , and Bates, B. L . : Space S h u t t l e Third F l i g h t (STS-3) Analysis. A I M Paper 83-0116, 1982.
T. A . ,

19.

20.

21.

Blackstock, Entry RCS

488

EVENT
lJ

AcL 0
~~

IJ
~

U
~

IJ
0.48 0.82

( I

ST3 1
MACH 2-26 MACH 6-26
-5.94 -5.85 3.34 3.62 -6.46 -6.72 3.36 3.51 1.08 0.56

srs

2 -6.86: -8.10 6.45 6.53 -7.60 -9.37 7.03 6.64 0.65 1.15 1.29 0.45

MACH 2-26 MACH 6-26

srs

3
-2.66 -2.42 2.10 1.69 -3.59 -3.83 1.94 1.76 0.90 1.36 1.29

MACH 2-26
MACH 6-26

0.45

srs

4

MACH 2-26 MACH 6-26

-4.24 -4.09

4.32 4.78

-4.97 -5.37

4.56 5.00

0.68 1.21

1.31 0.51

STS 5
MACH 2-26 MACH 6-26
-2.52
-2.11

1.76
1.58

-3.32 -3.41

1.59 1.52

0.77 1.25

1.18
0.38

s m 1-5
MACH 2-26 MACH 6-26
-4.50 -4.61 4.38 4.73 -5.24 -5.83 4.55 4.74 0.69 1.16 1.24 0.51

u

=

m e a n , 410

u = standard deviation, %

489

Figure 1.- Schematic of STS body axes, accelerations, and rates.

490

I

1

A

ZBd

ftlsec

2

I
I

TIME , 100 SEC
PB ,deglsec

'01

I

q g ,deglsec
41
1

-4 r g .deglsec 4 1

I

-4 6

9

12

15

18

21

24

TIME, 100 sec
Figure 2 . - IMU measured accelerations and r a t e s .
49 1

60

40

LATITUDE, deg

20
h

/
f
=

i

-

h

1000 s 2401000 Zt

V a nde nbc rg

464,000 ft

Go l d s r o n c

/ i

I

\

I

0

0

I

I
,

I .

I

130

150

170

190

210

I 230

I

25 0

I

LONGITUDE, deg
Figure 3.- STS-4 entry ground track.

492

38 I
36

LATITUDE,

c
t = 1600 s

/
I
e

- I

1

I

t = 2000

32 23 2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

h

1

s 78,000'
ft

234

236 238 LONGITUDE, deg

240

24 2

C-BAND ACQUISITION TO FINAL APPROACH

35.05

34.95
LAT ITUDE, deg

t -2320 s

t = 2300

S

-

34.85

t

h

I

END GDSS
67,000ft
TRACK

- 2140 s

t = 2150 s

h

- 38,000 ft

34.75

I

I

I

I

A

Figure 4 . - STS-4 ground track from C-band a c q u i s i t i o n t o landing.

+

-

\ \
'\ ,

VDFC
#1

-Ti *
TK C ?
\

493

v
A

,ft/sec

h ,ft

Y

x 10

:3[
I

A

,dw
FLIGHT PATH ANGLE 1

-

or

"i
20
15t
l! o5

"[
30 I

VELOCITY

0

L

I

I

I 4

a

12 TIME , 100 sec

16

20

24

I

F i g u r c 5.- Variation of STS-4 i n plane s t a t e parameters w i t h time from epoch.

494

ORIGiHNAL pp :% : ? OF POOR QLj;AL:Tr

TIME, 100 sec
F i g u r e 6 . - V a r i a t i o n of STS-4 a n g l e s of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p w i t h time from epoch.

MACH 30( - 30
q

-

Mach

25c 20c
-

2520-

150 100

1510 -

50 -

5-

0

-

00

4

a

12 TIME , 100 see

16

20

24

F i g u r e 7.-

V a r i a t i o n of STS-4 dynamic p r e s s u r e and Mach number w i t h t i m e from epoch.

495

10
p=O. 4 8

7

5 AL/D,%

o=l. 08

0
-5
-10
I I I 1 I I

I

I

I

I

I

25.0
12.5 L/

v-_ 3 3 - -- - - - _ _ _ ._4_ _ _ _ _
[I=

p=-5.94

VARIATIONS
_ _ _ e -

(v)
/ / - /
#

-25.0

25.0
0=3.36 6 p=- 6 . 4

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

VARIATIONS ( V I

V
-25.0
I

2

6

I

I

10

I

I

14

I

I

18

I

I

I

22

I

26

Mach No.
F i g u r e 8.- STS-1 l i f t and drag comparisons w i t h p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s .

496

p=O. 65

5-

a=l. 2 9

-10'

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

12.5

..

-.

-

- - - --- .-___-

M=-6.86 a=6.45

VARIATIONS(~)
c

------__-_---

-A#---/

AC

25.0'

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

1

I

1

I

'

I

12.5-

.v . _ -

p = - 7.60

0=7.03

VARIATIONS(V)

Mach No.
Eigure 9.-

STS-2 l i f t and drag comparisons with p r e f l i g h t predictions.

497

10 5

p=O. 90 a=l. 2 9

AL/D,%
0

-5
-10
I
I I I I I I I

I

I

I

12.57-

--

V

----

u=-2.66 0=2. I O

VARIATIONS(V)
A - -

/ '

-25.0

L
7'

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

j
I

25.0

-v
12.5

.-/

p=-3.59 a=l. 94

VARI ATIONSW

-12.5"\,_-

V
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

498

2.0
LID
1.6
1.2

.8
1.1
.9
I

1

C

.7
L.

.5
.3
1.2
1.o
C
fW "
I

v

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.8
D

. 6
.4 '2

2

6

10

14 Mach No.

18

22

26

F i g u r e 11.- STS-4 l i f t and drag comparisons w i t h p r e f l i g h t predictions.

499

5.0 2.5 -

M=O. 68 o = l . 31

I
I

I

25.0
12.5-----

V

p=-4.24

VARIATIONSW)

0=4.32

_--- -

-25.0

I

I

I

I

I

I ,

25.0

p=-4.97

V

Mach No.
F i g u r e 11. - Concluded.

500

LID,

1.1,

1

. 9

C

L

.7

. 5
. 3
1.2,
1.o
1

8 cD =
.6

.4

.2 2
Figure 12.-

6

10

14 18 Mach No.

22

26

STS-5 l i f t and drag c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n s .

50 1

5.0.
I

-

p=o. 7 7

o=l.

18

-5.0

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

J

-25.0'

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

J

1

25.0

v

p=- . o=l.35 3 2 9

VARIATIONS(~)

- - - -------_.___ _ ___-------J\- _ - 1 2.5 --'- * I

v
I

-

I

I

-25.01 2

I

I

6

10

I

I

14

I

I

I

18

I

I

I

I

22

26

Mach No.
F i g u r e 12.Concluded.

502

20
10

I

.

-10
-20

20
/--\

10

/

-10

-20

0

3

6

9

15 Mach No.

12

18

21

24

27

Figure 1 3 . - STS-3 l i f t and drag comparisons w i t h p r e f l i g h t predictions using DFI derived density ( p ) .

503

.02

cm o
-.02
-.04

-.06
-.08

Mach No.
Figure 14.- STS-5 pitching moment.

L - - - - - d -J /

V

i

-.004 0

5

L

10 15 Mach No.

20

25

L

30

Figure 15.- Rolling moment due t o s i d e s l i p .

504

.oo 1
0

FLIGHT(OP,~,~ PREDICT (PI VARIATIONS (VI CRAMER-RAO x 10 (1)
0 STS-2 STS-3
P -

OSTS-4 LISTS-S

1

-.oo

1

-.002

-.003
I

I
5
10

15 20 Mach No.

25

30

F i g u r e 16.- Yawing moment d u e t o s i d e s l i p .

.0024

.OO18

.oo 1 2
VARIATIONS (VI CRAMER-RAO x 10 (1) 0 STS-2 0 STS-4 0 STS-3 A STS-5
~ ~~

.0006
6

0

5

10

15 20 Mach No.

25

30

F i g u r e 1 7 . - Rolling moment d u e t o a i l e r o n .

505

.002

.oo 1

i,
E
T

VARIATIONS (VI CRAMER-RAO X
0 STS-2 0 STS-3

0

(1)

0 STS-4
A STS-5

c" ba

/deg

0

-.oo

1

-.(I02
Mach No.
F i g u r e 18.- Yawing moment due to a i l e r o n .

-008

FLIGHT (O,O,C\p) STS-2 PREDICT STS-4 PREDICT

- - --

C
Y6 J

0

-.008

-.O 16

-.024

Mach No.
F i g u r e 19.- S i d e f o r c e d u e t o RCS.

506

,012 cn
6J

0 STS-2 D STS-3 0 STS-4 A STS-5

FLIGHT ( 0 STS-2 PREDICT STS-4 PREDICT

- - --

0

5

10

15 Mach No.

20

25

30

F i g u r e 20.- Yawing moment d u e t o RCS.

FLIGHT (ODQA,O> STS-2 PREDICT STS-4 PREDICT

- - --

cZ

6J

-.0008

-

-.OO 18

-.0024

0

I

t

I

0 STS-2 0 STS-3

0 STS-4
A STS-5
0 DFI

i
5
F i g u r e 21.-

I
10

I
15

I 20

I
25

1
30

Mach No.
R o l l i n g moment d u e t o RCS.

507

PREDICTED AND FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCE, STABILITY AND CONTROL OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE FRO)! REENTRY TO LANDING
P a u l W. K i r s t e n , David F. Richardson, and Charles M. Wilson A i r Force F l i g h t Test Center Edwards A i r Force Base, C a l i f o r n i a

SUMMARY
This p a p e r p r e s e n t s aerodynamic perfcrmance, s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e f i r s t f i v e r e e n t r i e s of t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r . F l i g h t r e s u l t s are compared t o p r e d i c t e d d a t a from Mach 26.4 t o Mach 0 . 4 . D i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and pred:icted d a t a as w e l l as probable causes f o r t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s a r e given.
INTRODUCTION

e

The United S t a t e s Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r o f f e r s a unique o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e l a t e ground and f l i g h t t e s t d a t a f o r a manned maneuvering aerodynamic v e h i c l e over a wide range of hypersonic v e l o c i t i e s . T h u s f o r t h e f i r s t time ground aerodynamic predict i o n techniques can be e v a l u a t e d f o r extremely high v e l o c i t i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e e v a l u a t i o n can be conducted using s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t ground and f l i g h t techniques. The I j h u t t l e wind tunnel t e s t program was one of t h e l a r g e s t ever conducted, incorpora.:ing h i g h - f i d e l i t y t e s t f a c i l i t i e s and wind tunnel models. I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n sens o r s and r e e n t r y f l i g h t t e s t maneuvers were s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r t h e o r b i t e r t o o b t a i n high q u a l i t y f l i g h t r e s u l t s . A n a l y t i c a l computer programs which have been proven r e l i a b l e on numerous f l i g h t t e s t programs i n t h e p a s t were used t o e x t r a c t t h e f l i g h t d a t a . I t i s t h e r e f o r e . f e l t t h a t a meaningful comparison of p r e d i c t e d and f l i g h t aerodynamic d a t a can be made throughout t h e o r b i t e r ' s r e e n t r y envelope. ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS AFFTC
A i r Force F l i g h t Test Center

axial f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t

drag f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t
lift force coefficient
.*:;;

..
. i " 1 . .

r o l l i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t

/

... , . .'..

: ,. _ ... : .
I
I

_ '

-. , .\ '

.. e . . -. .. . .. .,

- -...
.
~

- ...-.... , >

.-.

m '

b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t
0

Preceding page blank

I

. --.. . _-

; ; L.'. -:
---.I

509
1.

. _.

...: ,

cN

normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t yawing moment c o e f f i c i e n t f e e t p e r second lift-to-drag Mach number m o d i f i e d maximum l i k e l i h o o d e s t i m a t o r yaw j e t m a s s f l o w r a t i o (8.296 x ratio

'n
f PS

LID
M
MMLE

V,/qm)

m . /moo J NASA PS f
9 - q , 4,

N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n pounds p e r s q u a r e f o o t p i t c h rate, deg/sec dynamic p r e s s u r e , p s f Space T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System f l i g h t s 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n parameter yaw j e t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s angle of a t t a c k , degrees s i d e s l jp angle , degrees a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n , degrees b o d y f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , degre'es e l e v a t o r d e f l e c t i o n , degrees rudder d e f l e c t i o n , degrees speedbrake d e f l e c t i o n (x-axis), p r e f i x meaning i n c r e m e n t degrees

v
a

STS-1,2,3,4 ,5

YJI

B
6a
6BF

6e

6r
6SB
0

Subscripts:

9 , YJI, a , 4 , &a, 6BF,

p a r t i a l derivatives with respect t o the subscripted variables

6e, 6r
DATA A C Q U I S I T I O N AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

One o f t h e l a r g e s t wind t u n n e l programs i n h i s t o r y w a s conducted f o r t h e Space ) S h u t t l e ( R e f e r e n c e 1 . Over 27,000 occupancy h o u r s were s p e n t o b t a i n i n g performance, s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e o r b i t e r from v i r t u a l l y e v e r y m a j o r wind t u n n e l f a c i l i t y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t amount of t h i s t i m e w a s s p e n t t e s t i n g t h e f i n a l f l i g h t c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Two h i g h f i d e l i t y wind t u n n e l models were c o n s t r u c t e d and t e s t e d t o p e r m i t a c c u r a t e modeling of a l l aerodynamic s u r f a c e s and s i m u l a t i o n of a l l a e r o d y n a m i c a l l y r e l e v a n t c a v i t i e s , g a p s , and p r o t u b e r a n c e s .

510

a

Most wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g was performed a t Mach 8 and below. There were a few t e s t s conducted above Mach 8 from which v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s w e r e o b t a i n e d . T h e o r e t i c a l e s t i m a t e s a t h i g h a l t i t u d e s (above 300,000 f e e t ) were added t o t h e b a s i c wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e t o a c c o u n t f o r low d e n s i t y e f f e c t s . A l s o , t h e o r e t i c a l e s t i m a t e s of a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s were i n c o r p o r a t e d a t h i g h e r dynamic p r e s s u r e s , p r i m a r i l y i n t h e t r a n s o n i c and s u b s o n i c r e g i o n s . Real g a s e f f e c t s , which would p r i m a r i l y o c c u r i n t h e 150,000 t o 270,000 f o o t a l t i t u d e r a n g e , w e r e n o t a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a , Thus, t h e d a t a r e f e r r e d t o a s “ p r e d i c t e d ” d a t a i n t h i s repor.:. c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f a n e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l d a t a b a s e up t o Mach 8, a l i m i t e d number o f w i n d t u n n e l t e s t s above Mach 8 t o o b t a i n v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s and h i g h Mach e f f e c t s , and t h e o r e t i c a l estimates of low d e n s i t y and a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s ( R e f e r e n c e 2 ) . None of t h e f l i g h t d a t a c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s r e p o r t were o b t a i n e d above 300,000 f e e t ; t h e r e f o r e , low d e n s i t y e f f e c t s were n o t a p p l i c a b l e , A l s o , a e r o e l a s t i c e f f e c t s f c r most of t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d were small i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r i g i d wind t u n n e l d a t a . N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e d a t a must b e r e f e r r e d t o as “ p r e d i c t e d ” rathe:: t h a n wind t u n n e l d a t a due t o t h e e x t e n s i v e e n g i n e e r i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t was a p p l i e d t o t h e b a s i c wind t u n n e l d a t a t o a c c o u n t f o r s u c h t h i n g s as e x t r a p o l a t i o n of Reyno:Lds number e f f e c t s , d i f f e r e n c e s between t u n n e l s and models, and l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n between t e s t c o n d i t i o n s . ‘Chree t y p e s o f t e s t maneuvers s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d f o r o b t a i n i n g aerodynamic d a t a were performed d u r i n g o r b i t e r reentries: (1) pushover-pullup maneuvers t o o b t a i n l o n g i t u d i n a l performance d a t a a s a f u n c t i o n of a n g l e of a t t a c k , ( 2 ) b o d y f l a p sweep:; t o o b t a i n b o d y f l a p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and ( 3 ) l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l p u l s e s t o o b t a i n s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s . A l l t h r e e maneuvers w e r e d e s i g n e d on ground b a s e d s i m u l a t o r s and p r a c t i c e d e x t e n s i v e l y by t h e f l i g h t crews prior t o flight. L i f t , d r a g , and l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m d a t a were computed from f l i g h t t e s t t h r o u g h t h e u s e of a F l i g h t T e s t Performance Data E x t r a c t i o n program. This program r e q u i r e d h i g h r e s o l u t i o n body a x i s a c c e l e r o m e t e r s t o compute performance d a t a . S i n c e t h e o r b i t e r i s a g l i d i n g v e h i c l e , t h e r e were n o t any t h r u s t terms t h a t had t o b e considered. D u r i n g a p u s h o v e r - p u l l u p maneuver, t h e p i t c h r a t e is s u s t a i n e d by an e l e v a t o r d e f l e c t i o n which a l s o c o n t r i b u t e s t o l i f t and d r a g . T h e r e f o r e , t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d
l i f t , drag, and e l e v a t o r d e f l e c t i o n were corrected t o zero p i t c h rate and pitch

a

a c c e l e r a t i o n t o o b t a i n trimmed ( e q u i l i b r i u m f l i g h t ) d a t a . These d a t a were a l s o c o r r e c t e d t o a s t a n d a r d c e n t e r of g r a v i t y p o s i t i o n (66.7 p e r c e n t ) f o r comparison w i t h t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a . The performance d a t a were c o r r e c t e d and s t a n d a r d i z e d u s i n g p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s f o r e l e v a t o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s (C , and CA ) and p r e d i c t e d m 9 ‘ N Se 6e Se p i t c h damping c o e f f i c i e n t d a t a (Cm ) .
4

S t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l d e r i v a t i v e s were e x t r a c t e d from f l i g h t d a t a t h r o u g h t h e u s e of a M o d i f i e d Maximum L i k e l i h o o d E s t i m a t o r (MMLE) program ( R e f e r e n c e 3 ) . T h i s program h a s b e e n e x t e n s i v e l y used on numerous a i r c r a f t and l i f t i n g body v e h i c l e s i n t h e p a s t , and h a s produced r e l i a b l e and a c c u r a t e r e s u l t s . I n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a n estimate of t h e v a l u e of t h e d e r i v a t i v e s , t h e program a l s o computes a n e s t i m a t i o n of t h e a c c u r a c y o f e a c h d e r i v a t i v e . These a c c u r a c y e s t i m a t i o n s c a n be i n v a l u a b l e i n a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i t y of t h e r e s u l t s . However, t h e f i n a l assessment of a c c u r a c y s h o u l d b e o b t a i n e d from t h e r e p e a t a b i l i t y of t h e r e s u l t s as a f u n c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r f:.ight p a r a m e t e r s u c h a s Mach number o r a n g l e o f a t t a c k .

511

The i n p u t d a t a t o t h e performance and MMLE programs were measurements from t h e o r b i t e r onboard i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n s y s t e m w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e p o s t f l i g h t c a l i b r a t i o n s / c o r r e c t i o n s a p p l i e d . The Mach number and dynamic p r e s s u r e were u p d a t e d b a s e d on t h e NASA Langley Researr.h C e n t e r Best E s t i m a t e d T r a j e c t o r y a n a l y s i s f o r STS-1 t h r o u g h O r b i t e r w e i g h t and b a l a n c e c a l c u l a t i o n s were p r o v i d e d by NASA. STS-4. COMPARISON OF FLIGHT AND PREDICTED DATA

S e l e c t e d aerodynamic d a t a o b t a i n e d from f l i g h t are compared t o p r e d i c t e d d a t a i n t h i s s e c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l o r b i t e r aerodynamic f l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s were p r e s e n t e d i n a n AGARD p a p e r ( R e f e r e n c e 4 ) and a l l t h e AFFTC a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s w i l l b e p u b l i s h e d i n a t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t a t some f u t u r e d a t e .

L o n g i t u d i n a l Performance The p r e d i c t e d performance and l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m d a t a are f o r a r i g i d o r b i t e r and are p r e s e n t e d i n F j g u r e s 1 t h r o u g h 8 a s s o l i d l i n e s . U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a are p r e s e n t e d a s dashed l i n e s above and below t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a where a p p l i c a b l e . These u n c e r t a i n t i e s were r e f e r r e d t o as " v a r i a t i o n s " i n t h e S h u t t l e program, and w e r e o b t a i n e d by comparing t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d d a t a on p r e v i o u s a i r c r a f t and l i f t i n g body f l i g h t t e s t programs. The h y p e r s o n i c l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o (L/D) d a t a o b t a i n e d from p u s h o v e r - p u l l u p maneuvers a t Mach numbers o f 7 . 7 and 1 2 . 4 are p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1. These d a t a S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d from showed e x c e l l e n t agreement w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s . p u s h o v e r - p u l l u p maneuvers a t Mach 1 7 . 0 and 20.3. The h y p e r s o n i c l i f t and d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t f l i g h t test d a t a i n g e n e r a l h a v e been less t h a n p r e d i c t e d due p r i m a r i l y t o a n e r r o r i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n of normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t ( C ) ( F i g u r e 2 ) . A x i a l f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t (C,) i s v e r y small ( F i g u r e 3 ) N and c o n s e q u e n t l y d o e s n o t c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e e r r o r i n C a n d C These L D' d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e r e s u l t a n t t o t a l f o r c e a c t i n g on t h e o r b i t e r w a s p r e d i c t e d c o r r e c t l y b u t t h e magnitude w a s wrong. The d a t a shown i n F i g u r e s 2 and 3 are f o r Mach numbers of 7 . 7 and 12.4. The C and C d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e N A Mach 1 7 . 0 and 20.3 maneuvers showed a s i m i l a r t r e n d . The s u b s o n i c L/D d a t a computed from a guidance-induced p i t c h maneuver are pres e n t e d i n F i g u r e 4 . The h i g h e r - t h a n - p r e d i c t e d L/D out-of-ground e f f e c t i s due p r i m a r i l y t o t h e l o w e r - t h a n - p r e d i c t e d d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t . The f l i g h t d a t a v a l u e s of C I. were v e r y c l o s e t o p r e d i c t i o n s . The p r i m a r y c a u s e of t h i s e r r o r i n C i s t h o u g h t t o
D

be an o v e r p r e d i c t i o n o f t h e d r a g due t o s u r f a c e i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e Thermal P r o t e c t i o n System (TPS). The d r a g i n c r e m e n t (.0038) t o a c c o u n t f o r TPS gaps and s t e p s was

512

b a s e d on t h e o r e t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s and w a s n o t v e r i f i e d w i t h wind t u n n e l t e s t s . Prel i m i n a r y f l i g h t t e s t d a t a a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e L/D in-ground e f f e c t w a s a l s o h i g h e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d . The h i g h e r s u b s o n i c performance r e q u i r e d some r e f i n e m e n t s t o t h e l a n d i n g a p p r o a c h ( r e v i s e d g l i d e s l o p e a i m p o i n t s ) i n o r d e r t o touch down a t t h e d e s i r e d p o i n t on t h e runway. The trimmed f l i g h t d a t a from a s p e e d b r a k e sweep a t 0.5 Mach number w e r e corr e c t e d t o a common e l e v a t o r d e f l e c t i o n (6 d e g r e e s ) t o o b t a i n t h e normal and a x i a l f o r c e c o e f f l c i e n t (CN and C ) increments due s o l e l y t o t h e s p e e d b r a k e . T h i s corA r e c t i o n a c c o u n t e d f o r t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f CN and CA due t o e l e v a t o r which was d e f l e c t e d t o c o u n t e r a c t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m change from t h e s p e e d b r a k e . These d a t a were c o r r e c t e d t o a common a n g l e of a t t a c k (6 d e g r e e s ) . The r e s u l t a n t c o r r e c t e d i c c r e m e n t s were p l o t t e d as a f u n c t i o n of s p e e d b r a k e d e f l e c t i o n i n F i g u r e 5. These d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s p e e d b r a k e e f f e c t i v e n e s s was s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d f o r d e f l e c t i o n s above 50 d e g r e e s . The normal f o r c e decrement due t o s p e e d b r a k e w a s less t h a n p r e d i c t e d . Note t h a t b o t h of t h e s e i n c r e m e n t s were depend e n t upon t h e v a l u e s f o r t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l d e r i v a t i v e s t h a t were used t o c o r r e c t t h e f l i g h t d a t a t o t h e s t a n d a r d e l e v a t o r and a n g l e of a t t a c k . P r e d i c t e d v a l u e s werc used f o r t h e s e d e r i v a t i v e s and w i l l b e updated whenever f l i g h t t e s t d a t a become available

.

The o r b i t e r f l i g h t c o n t r o l s o f t w a r e l o g i c c o n t a i n s a b o d y f l a p - e l e v a t o r i n t e r c o n n e c t d e s i g n e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e e l e v a t o r on a p r e d e f i n e d s c h e d u l e a s a f u n c t i o n of Mach number by a u t o m a t i c trimming o f t h e b o d y f l a p . A s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r i n l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m i n t h e h y p e r s o n i c Mach regime was a p p a r e n t on a l l f i v e o r b i t e r r e e n t r i e s . F o r example, d u r i n g STS-1 t h e t r i m b o d y f l a p w a s 16 d e g r e e s r a t h e r t h a n 7 d e g r e e s a t Mach numbers g r e a t e r t h a n 1 7 ( F i g u r e 6 ) . A n a l y s i s of t h e b o d y f l a p sweeps and t h e p i t c h p u l s e performed d u r i n g t h e second o r b i t e r r e e n t r y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e major c o n t r i b u t o r to t h e t r i m e r r o r w a s a n e r r o r i n t h e b a s i c p i t c h c u r v e , Cm , r a t h e r
0

than a n e r r o r i n e l e v a t o r o r bodyflap e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Figure 7 contains t r i m d a t a These d a t a were c o r o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e b o d y f l a p sweep a t a Mach number of 21.5. r e c t e d t o a c o n s t a n t LX o f 39 d e g r e e s and a r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e f l i g h t c e n t e r cf g r a v i t y . Note t h a t t h e s l o p e o f t h e f l i g h t t e s t d a t a i s s i m i l a r t o , o r s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d from b o d y f l a p sweeps a t Mach 1 6 . 6 and 1 2 . 1 . The t r i m e l e v a t o r d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e pushover-pullup maneuvers a t Mach numbers of 2 0 . 3 and 17.0 (Figure 8) showed t h a t t h e o r b i t e r w a s s t a t i c a l l y s t a b l e and t h e s l o p e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e combined e l e v a t o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s / p i t c h The f o r e g o i n g t e n d s t o c o n f i r m t h a t s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y was c l o s e t o p r e d i c t i o n s . t h e m i s p r e d i c t e d l o n g i t u d i n a l t r i m a t h y p e r s o n i c Mach numbers i s a t t r i b i i t a h l e t n an f o r Mach numbers g r e a t e r e r r o r i n b a s i c p i t c h i n g moment (Cm ) . The e r r o r i n C m
0
0

t h a n 1 6 v a r i e d between 0.026 and 0.029 ( a v e r a g e of . 0 2 7 5 ) dependtng on t h e f l i g h t from which t h e d a t a were o b t a i n e d ( F i g u r e 8 ) . T h i s f l i g h t t o f l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e c o r r e s p o n d s t o a n u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l c e n t e r of g r a v i t y o f +2.0 i n c h e s . The p r i m a r y c a u s e o f t h e e r r o r i n t h e p r e d i c t e d h y p e r s o n i c v a l u e s of C m

is
0

f e l t t o b e r e a l g a s e f f e c t s . Real g a s e f f e c t s a r e t h e aerodynamic e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g from d e v i a t i o n s of r e a l a i r thermodynamic p r o p e r t i e s from i d e a l g a s w i t h c o n s t a n t s p e c i f i c h e a t . These e f f e c t s were not f u l l y s i m u l a t e d i n wind t u n n e l t e s t s and were n o t a c c o u n t e d f c r i n t h e p r e d i c t e d aerodynamic d a t a b a s e of t h e o r b i t e r . Real g a s

513

e f f e c t s are most s i g n i f i c a n t between 150,000 and 270,000 f e e t (Mach numbers g r e a t e r t h a n 8.0). Recent a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s performed by t h e Arnold E n g i n e e r i n g Development C e n t e r , which are t h e s u b j e c t of a s e p a r a t e p a p e r i n t h i s c o n f e r e n c e , i n d i c a t e r e a l g a s e f f e c t s c o u l d p r o d u c e a p i t c h - u p increment of .024 above Yach 1 8 , which i s v e r y c l o s e t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s ( R e f e r e n c e 5 ) . The r e m a i n i n g s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e between f l i g h t and p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s o f C

m

could
0

b e c a u s e d by v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n and h i g h Mach number e f f e c t s . These e f f e c t s are t h o u g h t t o b e s m a l l i n comparison t o real g a s e f f e c t s , however, and tend t o c a n c e l each o t h e r .
The most s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f t h e e r r o r i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n of h y p e r s o n i c t r i m w i l l b e i n c r e a s e d h e a t i n g on t h e b o d y f l a p a n d / o r e l e v o n due t o t h e more downward d e f l e c t i o n r e q u i r e d . A d d i t i o n a l downward d e f l e c t i o n , and i n c r e a s e d h e a t i n g , would be r e q u i r e d f o r more a f t l o n g i t u d i n a l c e n t e r s of g r a v i t y . However, i t a p p e a r s t h a t h e a t i n g m a r g i n s are a d e q u a t e t o a c h i e v e t h e most a f t c e n t e r of g r a v i t y r e q u i r e d i n t h e S h u t t l e program p r o v i d e d t h a t a s u i t a b l e e l e v o n s c h e d u l e i s u s e d .

L a t e r a l - D i r e c t i o n a l Derivatives L a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l d e r i v a t i v e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from p u l s e maneuvers d u r i n g 3 , 4 , and 5 are c o n t a i n e d i n F i g u r e s 9 t h r o u g h 1 2 . Uncertainty e s t i m a t e s for t h e p r e d i c t e d and f l i g h t d a t a are a l s o shown. The p r e d i c t e d d a t a i s r e p r e s e n t e d by a s o l i d l i n e , w h i l e t h e s h o r t dashed l i n e r e p r e s e n t s a f a i r i n g o f t h e f l i g h t d a t a . F l i g h t d a t a u n c e r t a i n t i e s are p r e s e n t e d as v e r t i c a l b a r s a b o u t t h e d e r i v a t i v e v a l u e . P r e d i c t e d d a t a u n c e r t a i n t i e s are p r e s e n t e d as dashed l i n e s . S i n c e t h e o r b i t e r ' s r e e n t r y p r o f i l e f o r t h e p a r a m e t e r s which a f f e c t d e r i v a t i v e r e s u l t s w a s v e r y s i m i l a r f o r t h e f i r s t f i v e f l i g h t s , p r e d i c t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r o n l y t h e STS-2 t r a j e c t o r y are p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f i g u r e s and t h e f l i g h t test d a t a from t h e o t h e r f l i g h t s a r e c o r r e c t e d t o t h e STS-2 t r a j e c t o r y .
STS-2,

5 3 Mach number above Mach 1 2 and were c o n s i d e r a b l y less n e g a t i v e

The d i h e d r a l e f f e c t ( C

) i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 9.

Flight results varied with

than predicted a t very h i g h Mach numbers. The c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s as a f u n c t i o n of Mach number, and t h e f l i g h t u n c e r t a i n t y estimates, w e r e c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r t h a n t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e p r e d i c t e d d a t a f o r most maneuvers, i n d i c a t i n g h i g h c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s i n t h i s regime. L a r g e u n c e r t a i n t i e s were c o n t a i n e d i n t h e STS-2, 3 , and 4 f l i g h t r e s u l t s below Mach 3.5. The p r i m a r y c a u s e €or t h i s was t h a t t h r e e c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r s ( r u d d e r , a i l e r o n , and yaw j e t s ) w e r e a c t i v a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y d u r i n g t h e p u l s e maneuvers performed on t h e s e f l i g h t s . E x t r a c t i o n of a c c u r a t e Independent l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l d e r i v a t i v e s w a s n o t p o s s i b l e from t h e s e maneuvers. c o n t r o l e f f e c t o r p u l s e s were performed on STS-5, and t h e u n c e r t a i n t y estimates o f t h e f l i g h t r e s u l t s w e r e c o n s i d e r a b l y smaller. The STS-5 f l i g h t v a l u e of C was c l o s e t o p r e d i c t e d a t Mach 2.75 b u t more n e g a t i v e t h a n p r e d i c t e d a t Mach 1.6. A small a m p l i t u d e l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l o s c i l l a t i o n always o c c u r s around Mach 1 . 6 i n f l i g h t . The h i g h e r - t h a n - p r e d i c t e d d i h e d r a l e f f e c t i s a p o s s i b l e c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h i s o s c i l l a t i o n . Another p o s s i b l e c a u s e of t h e o s c i l l a t i o n h a s been p o s t u l a t e d t o b e shock detachment and r e a t t a c h m e n t on t h e v e r t i c a l f i n which r e s u l t s i n movement o f t h e c e n t e r o f p r e s s u r e on t h e f i n .

%

5 14

F l i g h t r e s u l t s f o r t h e d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y d e r i v a t i v e (Cn ) w e r e