Journal Pre-proofs

Full Length Article

Aerodynamics of ducted re-entry vehicles

C Anbu Serene Raj, M Narasimhavaradhan, N. Vaishnavi, Sarunvinthan, A

Al Arjani, S Nadaraja Pillai

PII: S1000-9361(20)30084-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.02.019
Reference: CJA 1503

To appear in: Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

Received Date: 19 June 2019

Revised Date: 10 October 2019
Accepted Date: 22 December 2019

Please cite this article as: C. Anbu Serene Raj, M. Narasimhavaradhan, N. Vaishnavi, Sarunvinthan, A. Al Arjani,
S. Nadaraja Pillai, Aerodynamics of ducted re-entry vehicles, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics (2020), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.02.019

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 28 (2019) xx-xx

Aerodynamics of ducted re-entry vehicles

C ANBU SERENE RAJ a, M NARASIMHAVARADHAN a, N VAISHNAVI a,
SARUNVINTHAN a, A AL ARJANI b, S NADARAJA PILLAI a,*
a Turbulence & Flow Control Lab, School of Mechanical Engineering, SASTRA Deemed University,
Tamil Nadu613401, India
b College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdelaziz University (PSAU), Alkharj 11942 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Received 19 June 2019; revised 10 October 2019; accepted 22 December 2019

Abstract

Ballistic parameter plays a major role in determining the re-entry trajectory. Lower ballistic coefficient offers an
optimal re-entry, wherein the vehicle decelerates higher up in the atmosphere thereby decreasing the imposed
aerothermal loads. The current computational study proposes an add-on, to the existing Orion-based re-entry vehicle: a
duct circumventing the capsule from the shoulder to the base, to improve the aerocapture ability of the re-entry vehicle.
The design cases are categorised based on a non-dimensional parameter termed the Annular Area Ratio (AAR).
Dragand ballistic coefficient of the Ducted Re-entry Vehicles (DRVs) at various Mach numbers are evaluated and
compared with those of the baseline model. The results show that the proposed design increases the drag for all the
AARs considered in the subsonic regime. In the supersonic regime, ducted models of higher AAR are more promising
with the increase in Mach number. DRVs also exhibit lower ballistic coefficients than their baseline counterparts.

Keywords: Aerocapture, Ballistic coefficient, Re-entry, Annular area ratio (AAR), CFD

1.Introduction computational tests were conducted across the world in

Atmospheric re-entry is a challenge for manned
interplanetary missions. Making a feasible re-entry is
of utmost importance since the re-entry method and the
trajectory determine the g-loads and the temperatures
experienced by the crew. The re-entry into the earth’s
atmosphere occurs at very high velocities
corresponding to flight Mach numbers of 30 or even
more. The highest was Mach number 36 attained by the
Apollo 6 return vehicle. These hypersonic flight
conditions are associated with several difficult
aerodynamic problems. Subsequently, the successful
manned entries of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo
vehicles were striking testimonials to the success of the
hypersonic research. The Apollo-derived Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV), part of NASA’s now-
cancelled Constellation Program, has become the
reference design for the new Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle (MPCV). It will serve as the exploration
vehicle for all near-term human space missions,
providing emergency abort capability, sustaining the
crew during space travel and providing safe re-entry
from deep space. It has the largest heat-shield of its
kind1. The versatile capabilities of the Orion CEV have
created a lot of interest in researchers to study the
aerodynamics of re-entry, to optimizeand develop
better design modifications to the existing design, and
to create exotic materials etc. Several experimental and
dedicated research facilities, like the one by Bibb et al.2
wherein wind tunnel and computational studies were
performed to develop the static aerodynamic database
for the Orion CEV. Murphy et al.3 also performed
similar wind tunnel tests on the longitudinal
aerodynamics of the CEV. Berry et al.1 used five
different facilities to experimentally validate the
computational predictions of the aero-thermodynamic
effects on the Orion CEV during re-entry. Hixson4
studied the performance of different descent, landing
and recovery systems in Orion CEV such as
parachutes, horizontal solid rocket motors, airbags after
jettisoning of heat shield etc. Aerothermal testing of
Orion was computationally performed by Hollis et al.5
to simulate the aero heating environment of the Orion
capsule by approximating the module as a smooth
body, for various Mach numbers and Reynolds
numbers. However, Murman et al.6 extended the study
by considering wall roughness over the Orion module
in the subsonic regime and the results were
experimentally validated against the wind tunnel
results. Sebastian and Tolson7 experimentally
investigated the aerodynamic coefficients and stability
derivatives for the Orion CEV.
Over the years, the effect on the drag coefficient
due to a physical modification in any vehicle has
piqued the curiosity of various researchers and
aerodynamicists. Re-entry vehicles have always been a

*Corresponding author.
E-mail address:nadarajapillai@mech.sastra.edu.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
subject of interest in this regard, considering the huge
practical implications. Many researchers have worked
to improve the re-entry parameters of the Orion CEV
and other re-entry vehicles. Some of the notable
computational works on re-entry vehicles are listed in
Table 1. Braun et al.8 identified the limitations of the
existing Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) technology
for re-entry vehicles and suggested a flexible heat
shield mechanism stating its advantages over the
existing solid heat shield designs. A study by
Whitmore et al.9 involved the comparative
aerodynamic analysis of the re-entry configurations:
HL-20, Biconic capsule, Apollo capsule and a modified
Apollo capsule with trim flaps. Moreover, Chen et al.10
computationally investigated the effect of flaps and
strakes in the re-entry vehicles in order to improve the
·2·
monostability characteristics in both subsonic and
hypersonic regimes while maintaining the required L/D
ratios. The effect on ballistic coefficient and stability
due to the deployable heat shield was demonstrated by
Carandente11, Savino12 and Fedele13 et al. Supersonic
retro propulsion jets14, counter flow jets15, spiked
vehicles16 and counter flow jets with a spike17,18, which
alter the bow shock and drag in accordance with the
requirements, have also been studied. Kaushikh et al.19
introduced undulations on the aft-body of a re-entry
vehicle to analyze the parameters like mono-stability
characteristics and peak heat flux. Table 2 lists the
effect of some of these design alterations on the critical
parameters of re-entry8-20. The current work aims to
develop a ballistic aerocapture9 mechanism, for an
Orion based re-entry vehicle.

Table 1 Previous computational works on re-entry vehicles

Mechanism Numerical method Mach number Observation Reference

Hypersonic incidence Provides operational flexibility with active

Trim flaps 10-30 Ref. 9
angle analysis tools control of angle of attack

Improved the mono-stability characteristics

Aft-body flaps & 0.6, 1.5, 2, 5,
CACFD by decreasing the destabilizing moment on the Ref.10
strakes 10
heat shield
Increases EDL system’s mass efficiency by
Flexible heat
C++, MATLAB 30, 32.2 providing freedom in design to compensate Ref.8
shield & SRP
for the weight disadvantage
Deployable heat
Decreased ballistic coefficient and improved
shield (micro/ FLUENT AUSM+ 21.1 Refs.11-13, 20
aerodynamic stability
nanocapsules)
Supersonic
Series of cascading oblique shocks increase
Retro-Propulsion Cart3D package 1.1-10 Ref. 14
the aerodynamic drag
(SRP) jets
Reduced drag, aeroheating by increasing
Spiked re-entry
FLUENT 6 shock standoff distance and strong Ref. 16
vehicles
recirculating flow

Conservation element Drag reduction by creating a region of low

Counter flow jets 3.48, 4.96 Ref.15
solution element velocity ‘dead air’ acting like a spike

Counter flow or
Recirculating flow generated by the lateral
lateral jets and RANS SST k-ω, CHT 3.98, 6 Refs. 17,18
jets reduces drag and heat flux
spikes

Undulated re- Decreased heat flux achieved by varying the

RANS SST k-ω 3, 7 Ref.19
entry vehicles amplitude and wavelength of the undulations
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·3·

Table 2 Various mechanisms considered and their impact on critical parameters of re-entry

Design mechanism

Parameter Spiked
Deployable Counter-flow Undulated
Trim Flaps and Supersonic retro- Counter- re-entry
heat shield11– or lateral jet re-entry
flaps 9 strakes10 13, propulsion jets14 flow jets15 vehicles1
6 with spike17,18 vehicles19

Drag - -   × × × -

Heat flux × - × -   × ×

Ballistic
- - × - - - - -
coefficient

Stability    -  - - -

Notes:, × indicate an increase and decrease in the parameter considered respectively; - indicates that the effect of the design
mechanisms on the respective parameters was not clearly found in the literature.

2. Computational methodology been considered. The reference area (S) is the projected
area of the DRV onto the YOZ plane. The proposed
The configuration of the baseline re-entry vehicle models are termed as Ducted Re-entry Vehicles
considered in the present work is derived from the (DRVs).
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle3, a reusable
transportation capsule similar in shape to the Apollo
capsule. It has an increased heat shield diameter and
extends for a span of around 3.3 m (L = 130 in), with a
launch mass of 8900 kg. Fig. 1 shows the dimensions
and nomenclature of the baseline model used in the
current study.
The proposed re-entry vehicle design constitutes a
duct encapsulating the aft-body of the baseline model
from the shoulder to the base. The proposed design is
characterised by the normal spacing of the duct from
the capsule’s aft-body surface (x). The extended
curvature of the heat shield is taken to be the entry of
the duct inlet. As the normal spacing between the duct
and the capsule’s surface is varied, the inlet and outlet
annular areas of the duct differ. It was speculated that
this variation in the area would affect the drag. To
formally analyse its effect, a non-dimensional
parameter termed as the Annular Area Ratio (AAR)
was introduced. AAR is defined as the ratio of the area
of the annular inlet to that of the outlet and is
mathematically represented as follows:
𝑅21 ― 𝑅22
AAR = 2 (1)
𝑟1 ― 𝑟22

The radii taken into consideration for calculating

the AAR of ducted models are shown in Fig. 2(a). In
this study, nine configurations obtained by varying the
normal spacing of the duct, in increments of 0.125 m,
in the range of 0.1-0.3 m, as shown in Table 3, have
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·4·

Fig. 1 Baseline re-entry vehicle geometry and
nomenclature
The current study is limited to the aerodynamic
effect of the addition of duct to the re-entry vehicle,
modelled as a smooth body. The body axis system of
the proposed DRV is shown in Fig. 2(b) wherein the
axis of the re-entry vehicle lies along the X-direction
with the heat shield facing the freestream. Hence the
axial, normal and side forces act along the X, Y and Z-
axes respectively.
The computational domain, shown in Fig. 3, is
divided into a finite number of unstructured tetrahedral
elements. In order to identify the mesh density that
provides a mesh independent result, grid independency
study is done on the baseline CEV model and the value
of drag computed using the RANS solver is validated6.
The drag coefficient CD as predicted by different mesh
densities are tabulated in Table 4. From the results, a
mesh density of 1.2 million elements was chosen to be
used throughout the study.

Fig. 3 Isometric view of computational domain

Table 4 Mesh independency results

No. of elements (106) CD

0.698 1.051
0.806 0.999
0.942 0.939
1.019 0.888
1.108 0.857
1.206 0.855
1.260 0.869
1.318 0.886
Fig. 2 Ducted re-entry geometry definitions and The mesh is converted to polyhedra in Fluent, for
body axes system its known ability to handle stretched cells and to
predict recirculating flows accurately21. Moreover,
Table 3 Design specifications of considered DRVs
polyhedral mesh automatically creates prismatic
elements at the boundary and walls thereby
x(m) AAR L(m) S=π𝑅21 (m2)
overcoming the inability of tetrahedral mesh to resolve
0.1 4.006 5.493 23.698 boundary layers. The 3D, double-precision, implicit
0.125 3.598 5.538 24.085 density-based solver of flux type Roe-FDS is used for
all the computational simulations. Reynolds Averaged
0.15 3.309 5.582 24.476
Navier Stokes (RANS) equations are solved to get the
0.175 3.095 5.627 24.869 smooth variation of the averaged velocity and the
0.2 2.928 5.671 25.261 pressure fields in a turbulent flow. The two-equation
0.225 2.796 5.716 25.657 SST k-ω turbulence model has been used to close the
0.25 2.689 5.760 26.055
RANS equations as it predicts the separation and
reattachment better than other models22. Air, of ideal
0.275 2.602 5.804 26.456
gas density variation, is chosen to be the freestream
0.3 2.529 5.848 26.861 fluid. Three-coefficient form of Sutherland's viscosity
law, by Sutherland (1893), based on the kinetic theory
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·5·

of gases and idealized intermolecular-force potential, is The computational domain boundaries were set to
used to define viscosity. pressure far-field, to simulate the freestream conditions
3
𝑇0 + 𝑆𝑢 and stationary wall, and to ensure no-slip condition
𝑇
() ( )
2
𝜇 = 𝜇0 + (2) over the models. Based on the framework of previous
𝑇0 𝑇 + 𝑆𝑢
works, the freestream static boundary conditions listed
where µ0 is the reference viscosity, T0 is the reference in Table 6 are used for the pressure far-field condition.
temperature and Su is the Sutherland constant. The The turbulence intensity and viscosity ratio are set to
piecewise polynomial equation defines the variation of their default values 5% and 10 respectively.
specific heat capacity, Cp as a function of temperature Green-Gauss node based gradient is used for its
23 in the range of 550-2000 K. C is taken to be 1018.2
p accuracy over cell-based gradients on irregular
J/(kgK) for the temperature range 273 K to 550 K24. unstructured meshes. The discretization scheme for the
Table 5 gives the coefficients of the polynomial convection terms was set to first-order upwind scheme
equation used for Cp. for the first few iterations and then changed to second-
𝐶𝑝(𝑇) = 𝑎0 + 𝑎1𝑇 + 𝑎2𝑇2 + 𝑎3𝑇3 + 𝑎4𝑇4 (3) order upwind scheme to be proceeded with till
convergence. To improve the start-up and general
Thermal conductivity 𝑘(𝑇)variation is calculated solution behaviour of the simulations, Higher-Order
from the following piecewise-linear equation at 36 data Term Relaxation (HOTR), Convergence Acceleration
points of temperature from 250 K to 2000 K in steps of for Stretched Meshes option (CASM) and Warped-face
50 K: Gradient Correction were enabled. All the residuals
1.9942 × 10 ―3 × 𝑇1.5
𝑘(𝑇) = (4) were set to 1106.
𝑇 + 112

Table 5 Coefficients of Cp polynomial equation

a0 a1 a2 a3 a4
874.687 0.325431 2.07132105 6.63386108 2.663531011
𝑚
𝛽 = 𝐶𝐷𝑆 (5)
Table 6 Freestream boundary conditions
Upon observation of the drag coefficient plot, it is
Ma Pressure (Pa) Temperature(K) found that there is a rise in CD initially followed by a
0.5 7550 110 gradual decrease proceeding towards Mach number
0.7 7000 165 independence which is evident by the decrease in slope
1.2 4519 210 as Mach number increases. The inverse proportionality
1.4 3952 213 of β to CD is clearly evident from Fig. 4. The range of
2 2891 219
the ballistic coefficient is found to lie between 290 and
615 kg/m2.
3 2073 224
5 1238 232 3.1.1 Subsonic regime
6 1064 234
In the subsonic regime, Mach number 0.5, 0.7 were
considered. The baseline model shows a significant
3. Results and discussion increase in drag from Mach number 0.5 to 0.7. Cp
distribution along the sectional surface of the baseline
3.1 Baseline re-entry vehicle re-entry vehicle is plotted against the axial position x/L
of the capsule. When the freestream flow encounters
The drag coefficient obtained for the baseline model is
the capsule, it stagnates at the centre of the heat shield,
plotted for various Mach numbers in Fig. 4(a). The
causing an increase in pressure, which can be seen as
mass of the baseline re-entry vehicle is presumed to be
the peak Cp value at zero x/L, in Fig. 5. The flow
8900 kg, and for the ducted capsules, an allowance of
pattern over the baseline re-entry vehicle was observed
100 kg is given to account for the ducts. The ballistic
for each regime using the streamline plots and the
coefficient, β, is calculated (in kgm-2) using the
schematic is shown in Fig. 6. The sudden drop in Cp
formula (5) and plotted at various Mach numbers as
near the shoulder of the capsule indicates strong flow
shown in Fig. 4(b).
acceleration, after which, the flow separates to create
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·6·

vortices symmetric about the axis of the capsule, Fig. 4 Drag coefficient and ballistic coefficient vs
recirculating over the aft-body. This recirculation Mach number of baseline re-entry vehicle
vortex is represented schematically in Fig. 7(a). The
pressure remains almost constant over the aft-body
indicating a separated flow. Near the base, another
expansion region is observed, followed by an increase
in Cp as we proceed towards the axis of the capsule. At
Mach 0.7, the strength of this expansion region
reduces, indicated by the rise in Cp value at the
shoulder. Also, an increase in base pressure is seen at
higher Mach Number Ma. The increase in pressure at
the heat shield is evident from Fig. 5 (a). It also
elucidates the region of expansion with lower pressure
near the base. From Fig. 4 (b), it is clear that the
ballistic coefficient is very high in the subsonic regime.
Given that the mass and area of the baseline re-entry
vehicle do not change, the high value of β is due to the
low drag coefficients.

Fig. 5 Pressure coefficient Cp vs axial position x/L

plotted along the sectional surface of baseline re-entry
vehicle in subsonic regime
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·7·

Fig.6 Pressure contour comparison between baseline capsule and DRV (AAR=3.1)

3.1.2 Low supersonic regime be seen that compression shock over the base of the
capsule, prominent from Mach number 2, redirects the
The observed spike in CD from Mach number 0.7 to 1.2 flow again into the freestream direction. Considering
can be attributed to the presence of shock waves. the surface pressure coefficient, Fig. 8 reveals that the
Among the considered Mach numbers, the baseline re- aft-body and the base experience an overall rise in
entry vehicle attains maximum drag at Mach number surface pressure, in addition to the increase in peak
1.2 after which it decreases steadily. Generally, the pressure at the heat shield with respect to Mach
supersonic flow over blunt re-entry vehicles is number.
characterised by the presence of a bow shock, as
depicted in Fig. 7(b). The flow strongly decelerates
downstream of the bow shock as Ma increases. On the
other hand, the shock stand-off distance decreases,
increasing the heat shield pressure steadily throughout
the regime. At higher Mach number, the recirculating
flow shrinks in size, eventually resulting in a partially
attached flow over the aft-body. From Fig. 6 (b), it can
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·8·

3.1.3 High supersonic regime

In this regime, the bow shock becomes stronger and

moves in closer to the capsule raising the heat shield
pressure (Fig. 6 (c)), attaining a constant value. Fig. 9
displays the increase in aft-body pressure, up to the
freestream pressure with increasing Mach number. As
can be seen in Fig. 7 (c), the flow over the aft-body is
partially attached, before separating to form a smaller
recirculating zone. In general, the drop in pressure
difference across the capsule and reduction in the
recirculation region explain the drop in drag with Mach
number in the supersonic regime. The progressive
decrease in drag with Ma, as observed in Fig. 4 (a), can
be construed as an early sign of Mach number
independence.

Fig. 7 Schematic diagram of flow pattern over baseline

re-entry vehicle

Fig. 9 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted

along the sectional surface of baseline re-entry vehicle
in high supersonic regime
3.2 Ducted re-entry vehicle

3.2.1 Subsonic regime

Fig. 8 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted
along the sectional surface of baseline re-entry vehicle From Fig. 10 (a), it can be observed that the drag
in low supersonic regime coefficient increases monotonically with AAR and
Mach number. As the frontal area of the DRV
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics ·9·

decreases with theincrease in AAR, the ballistic
coefficient increases with AAR. As observed in Fig. 10
(b), in the subsonic regime, ducted re-entry vehicles
exhibit lower β values as Ma reaches unity. The range
of β lies between 237 and 270 kg/m2 for the DRVs
whereas it ranges from 460 to 615 kg/m2 for the
baseline re-entry vehicle.
axial position of around 0.9, whereas at Mach number
0.7 the pressure difference continues further towards
the duct outlet explaining the observed increase in drag
coefficient at Mach number 0.7.
The freestream flow stagnates at the heat shield
and tries to expand near the shoulder as in baseline
capsules. But, due to the presence of duct, the flow
expansion is reduced, eventually stagnating at the inner
surface of the duct inlet, and hence the rise in Cp at the
axial position of around 0.16 is observed. It is
presumed that the low pressure at the base draws the
stagnated flow near the inlet, accelerating through the
duct (Fig.6 (a)). The flow separates from the duct in the
ducted models as opposed to the baseline model where
it separates at the shoulder. This creates a recirculation
vortex, shown in Fig. 13 (a) as 1. The outflow from the
duct creates a counter-rotating vortex, pushing the
original symmetric vortex outwards, represented as 2 in
Fig. 13 (a). This counter-rotating vortex produces a
stagnation point over the upper surface of the duct.

Fig. 10 Drag coefficient and ballistic coefficient vs

AAR of ducted re-entry vehicle at subsonic Mach
number
From the Cp plots in Figs. 11 and 12, it can be
seen that the peak heat shield pressure for the ducted
models is slightly higher than that of the baseline
model irrespective of the AAR. Comparing the surface
pressure distribution over the baseline model to that of
the ducted models, it is noteworthy that there is a
significant pressure drop towards the base of the
vehicle. The pressure drop can also be seen at the inner
surface of the duct’s end. This indicates a strong
acceleration of the bypassed duct flow towards the
Fig. 11 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted
base. The pressure difference between the inner and the
along the sectional surface of the DRV of AAR=4 in
outer surface of the duct produces a normal pressure
subsonic regime
force on the duct. The increase in drag of the ducted
capsules is speculated to be the result of the additional
axial component of the normal pressure force on the
duct. At Mach number 0.5, the pressure difference on
the duct surfaces nullifies itself towards the base at an
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Fig. 12 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted
along the sectional surface of the DRV of AAR=2.5 in
subsonic regime
· 10 ·
Fig. 13 Schematic diagram of flow pattern over DRVs
With decreasing AAR, the peak pressure at the
bottom surface of the duct inlet drops slightly. It is
evident that, towards the outlet of the duct, the pressure
on the capsule surface and the duct’s inner surface
differ, reducing the overall high pressure inside the
duct. This creates a strong suction resulting in an
accelerated flow through the duct. This accelerated
duct flow elongates the counter-rotating vortex and
shrinks the original symmetric recirculating vortex.
These effects might justify the decreasing trend of drag
seen with a decrease in AAR.
3.2.2 Low supersonic regime
Mach numbers 1.2, 1.4 and 2 have been covered under
the low supersonic regime. The trends in CD and β with
AAR and that of Cp along the length of the capsule are
shown in Figs. 14 (a) and (b). Additionally, the flow
behaviour is also discussed briefly in this section.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics · 11 ·

at a higher pressure as opposed to that at the subsonic

regime where there was a steady drop of pressure along
the length of the capsule (Fig. 6 (b)). This tendency
increases with increase in Mach number. However, as
the flow approaches the base of the capsule, the
pressure drops sharply, resulting in an accelerated flow
inside the duct. This outflow is further accelerated by
the expansion region around the base. As the AAR
decreases, the pressure difference between the outer
and inner surfaces of the duct decreases, which is
noticeable in the plots. This might explain the reason
for higher drag at higher AARs.

Fig. 14 Drag coefficient and ballistic coefficient vs

AAR of ducted re-entry vehicle at low supersonic
Mach numbers
The general trend of increasing CD with increasing
AAR is seen in this regime also. Ballistic coefficient,
being dependent on drag, also behaves in a similar
fashion, but in an inverted manner. The ballistic
coefficient increases with AAR for all Mach numbers
except Mach number 1.2, which could explain the high
value of CD. Both ofthe plots are in agreement with this
point. In this regime, β lies between 215 and 235 kg/m2
for the DRVs, which is lower compared to that of the
baseline re-entry vehicle which ranges from 290 to 300 Fig. 15 Pressure coefficient vs axial position
kg/m2. plotted along the sectional surface of the DRV of
From the Cp plots shown in Figs. 15 and 16, it is AAR=4 in low supersonic regime
observed that the peak pressure at the heat shield is For ducted capsules of lower AAR, as Mach
slightly higher at low supersonic regime relative to the number increases from subsonic to supersonic, the
subsonic regime. The peak pressure coefficient is just recirculating region seen at the rear of the capsule
around 1.4 at Mach number 1.2, exactly 1.5 at Mach shortens in length. The size of the original recirculation
number 1.4 and greater than 1.5 at Mach number 2, vortex is significantly reduced in comparison to that of
suggesting an increasing trend. This can be attributed the subsonic regime. At higher AAR, the counter-
to the decrease in standoff distance of the bow shock. rotating vortex becomes strong enough to separate the
With the increase in Mach number, it is also observed original vortex into two discrete vortices, one of which
that the pressure on the outer surface of the duct is lies over the duct between the counter-rotating vortex
fairly constant along the length of the capsule. There is and duct inlet while the other extends downstream
a tendency for the flow in the annular region to remain from the base. At Mach number 2, the transition to the
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
next regime starts with the diminishing vortices and
predominant attached flow over the duct. This is
represented in Figs. 13 (b) and (c). Recompression
shock is a common characteristic observed in all cases.
Fig. 16 Pressure coefficient vs axial position
plotted along the sectional surface of the DRV of
AAR=2.5 in low supersonic regime
3.2.3 High supersonic regime
In this regime, Mach number 3, 5 and 6 are considered.
Similar to other regimes, the drag coefficient increases
with a decrease in normal duct distance from the
capsule. It is evident from Figs. 17 (a) and (b) that, as
the freestream Mach number increases to higher and
higher values, CD drops steadily, bringing about an
equivalent increase in the overall ballistic coefficient
range of the ducted capsules in this regime. However,
with respect to baseline re-entry vehicle, the DRVs
have lower β values.
· 12 ·
Fig. 17 Drag coefficient and ballistic coefficient vs
AAR of ducted re-entry vehicle at high supersonic
Mach numbers
In this regime, the peak heat shield pressure and
the base pressure of the ducted capsules remain
constant without much deviation from the baseline
capsule. However, the drag improvement when
compared to the baseline capsule can be explained by
the axial component of the normal duct force.
With the increase in Mach number from 3 to 6, the
pressure distribution over the upper surface of the duct
increases and gradually attains a value equal to the
freestream pressure. This is evident from Figs. 18 and
19. There is almost no Cp variation throughout the
upper surface of the duct. Furthermore, it is evident
from Fig. 6 (c) that the high-pressure region inside the
duct is prevalent for almost the entire length of the
duct. For ducted capsules of lower AAR, the pressure
inside the duct falls gradually, weakening the pressure
difference across the duct. This minimizes the drag
contribution of the duct, explaining the observed
decline in drag coefficient value.
Figs. 13 (d) and (e) illustrate that, in the high
supersonic regime, bow shock moves closer to the
capsule. The flow over the ducted configurations of
higher AAR indicates that the flow over the duct tries
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
to attach to the surface and separates eventually. The
previously diminishing counter-rotating vortex over the
outlet of the duct fades away and only the original
recirculating vortex subsists. However, ducted capsules
of higher AAR display another flow pattern wherein
the flow remains attached to the duct surface without
any recirculation zone, and hence no vortexis seen.
Throughout the regime, the recompression shock is
established irrespective of the freestream Mach number
Fig. 18 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted
along the sectional surface of the DRV of AAR=4 in
high supersonic regime
· 13 ·
Fig. 19 Pressure coefficient vs axial position plotted
along the sectional surface of the DRV of AAR=2.5 in
high supersonic regime
3.3 Enlarged re-entry vehicle
One might speculate that the increase in drag for the
DRVs is possibly due to the increased frontal area. To
avoid such perplexity, an enlarged capsule equivalent
to the best performing ducted capsule (AAR = 4) has
been modelled and simulated for three Mach numbers,
one in each regime. The enlarged model, without the
duct, has an increased heat shield diameter but the
same basic design as the baseline CEV, with the length,
back shell angle, and the radius of the heat shield
unchanged as shown in Fig.20. The aim is to compare
the drag coefficients of these equivalent models of the
same frontal area. The results indicate that increasing
the frontal area of the capsule whilekeeping all other
design parameters constant, in fact, reduces the drag of
the capsule as opposed to the original speculation. The
comparison of drag is presented in Fig. 21.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Fig. 20 Illustration of the equivalence of an enlarged
re-entry vehicle with the DRV
Fig.21 Comparison of drag coefficients of baseline,
enlarged and its equivalent DRV at Ma= 0.7, 1.4 and 5
4. Conclusions
The present work aims at developing a ballistic
aerocapture method for an Orion based re-entry vehicle
to achieve optimal re-entry. This was achieved by
circumventing the CEV with a duct extending from the
shoulder to the base of the capsule, to increase the drag
thereby lowering the ballistic coefficient. A baseline re-
entry vehicle and nine different DRV configurations
were modelled and computationally investigated under
three flow regimes ranging from Mach number 0.5 to
6. The results were compared to study the drag
characteristicsand surface pressure characteristics, and
to understand the flow phenomena due to the presence
of the duct. The conclusions are as follows:
(1)The addition of a circumventing duct reduces
the ballistic coefficient significantly.
(2)The increase in drag seen in the DRVs is not
due to the change in the effective frontal area but due
to modified flow around and through the constant duct
surrounding the baseline CEV.
(3)The pressure drag of the DRV was due to two
components: the pressure difference across the capsule
that produces an axial force on the vehicle (along +X),
andthe pressure difference across the duct that
produces a normal force on the duct.
(4)It was observed that the higher AAR
configurations performed well under all the regimes,
unlike the lower AAR configurations, which showed a
· 14 ·
negative increase in drag with increasing Mach
number. The general trend is that, with increasing
AAR, drag contributed by the duct increases, and with
increasing Mach number, drag increases up to Ma =
1.2, after which the pressure difference across the
capsule is compromised, leading to the observed
decrease in drag.
Hence, it is aerodynamically possible to modify
the drag and ballistic coefficient at any point of the
trajectory in a DRV by varying the AAR.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Research and
Modernization Fund, SASTRA
University(No.R&M/0035/SoME-008/2015-17).
References
1 Berry S, Horvath T, Langley N, et al. Aerothermal
testing for project orion crew exploration.41st AIAA
thermophysics conference.Reston: AIAA; 2009.
2 Bibb KL, Walker EL, Brauckmann GJ, et al.
Development of the orion crew module static
aerodynamic database.AIAA applied aerodynamics
conference. Reston: AIAA; 2011.
3 Murphy K ,Brauckmann G , Bell J, et al. Orion crew
module aerodynamic testing. 29th AIAA applied
aerodynamics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2011.
4 Hixson RA. Orion vehicle descent, landing, and
recovery system level trades. AIAA space 2008
conference & exposition.Reston: AIAA; 2008.
5 Hollis BR, Berger KT, Horvath TJ, et al. Aeroheating
testing and predictions for project orion CEV at
turbulent conditions. Reston: AIAA; 2008. Report No.:
AIAA-2008-1226.
6 Murman SM, Childs R, Garcia J. Simulation of
atmospheric-entry capsules in the subsonic regime.
53rd AIAA aerospace science meeting.Reston: AIAA;
2015.
7 Sebastian T, Tolson R. Methods for the determination
of aerodynamic parameters and trajectory
reconstruction of the orion command module from
scale model aeroballistic flight data. 47th AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2009
8 Braun M, Bruce P, Levis E. Strategies to utilize
advanced heat shield technology for high-payload mars
atmospheric entry missions. Acta Astronaut 2017; 136:
22–33.
9 Whitmore SA, Banks DW, Andersen BM, et al. Direct-
entry, aerobraking, and lifting aerocapture for human-
rated lunar return vehicles. 44th AIAA aerospace
science meeting.Reston: AIAA; 2006.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
10 Chen BY, Zhan HL, Zhou WJ. Aerodynamic design of
a re-entry capsule for high-speed manned re-entry. Acta
Astronaut 2015; 106: 160–9.
11 Carandente V, GennaroZ, Raffaele S.
Aerothermodynamic and stability analyses of a
deployable re-entry capsule. Acta Astronaut 2014; 93:
291–303.
12 Savino R, Carandente V. Aerothermodynamic and
feasibility study of a deployable aerobraking re-entry
capsule. Fluid Dyn Mater Process 2012; 8(4): 453–76.
13 Fedele A, Mungiguerra S. Aerodynamics and flight
mechanics activities for a suborbital flight test of a
deployable heat shield capsule. Acta Astronaut 2018;
151: 324-33.
14 Bakhtian NM, Aftosmis MJ. Maximum attainable drag
limits for atmospheric deceleration via. 8th
international planetary probe workshop. 2011.
15 Chang CL, Venkatachari BS, Cheng G. Effect of
counterflow jet on a supersonic reentry capsule. 42nd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference &
exhibit.Reston: AIAA; 2006.
16 Ahmed MYM, Qin N. Recent advances in the
aerothermodynamics of spiked hypersonic vehicles.
Prog Aerosp Sci 2011; 47(6): 425–49.
17 Eghlima Z, Mansour K. Drag reduction for the
combination of spike and counter flow jet on blunt
· 15 ·
body at high Mach number flow.Acta Astronaut 2017;
133: 103–10.
18 Zhu L, Chen X, Li YK, et al. Investigation of drag and
heat reduction induced by a novel combinational lateral
jet and spike concept in supersonic flows based on
conjugate heat transfer approach. Acta Astronaut2018;
142: 300–13.
19 Kaushikh K, Arunvinthan S, Nadaraja PS.
Aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics of undulated
re-entry vehicles. Acta Astronaut 2018; 142: 95–102.
20 Marraffa L, Mazoué F, Reynier P, et al. Some
aerothermodynamic aspects of ESA entry probes.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 2006; 19(2): 126-33.
21 Milovan P, Stephen F. The advantage of polyhedral
meshes. CD-Adapco, www.cd-adapco.com, 2004.
22 Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;
32(8) : 1598–605.
23 Liu J, Li K, Liu WQ. High-temperature gas
effects on aerodynamic characteristics of
waverider. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 2015;
28(1): 57 -65.
24 Kumar S, Mahulikar SP. Aero-thermal analysis of lifting
body configurations in hypersonic flow. Acta
Astronautica 2016; 126: 382-94.