Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

J M Thornton

Publications and source records attributed to J M Thornton.

Uranus Probe Entry and Descent Mission Concept

Introduction: Uranus was identified as the third highest priority flagship mission in the 2012-2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey. This latest concept study was requested by the Decadal Survey panel to determine NASA’s planetary science priorities from 2022-2032. This study focused on the probe’s entry and descent aspects and associated trades for viable trajectory options. Uranus Mission and Descent Probe: The proposed Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP) Flagship mission will investigate Uranus and its surrounding moons using an orbiting spacecraft with a Uranus descent probe. Unlike previous studies the probe release will occur after orbit insertion allowing sufficient separation of critical events during the orbit insertion burn. The probe will be released at an altitude that allows one hour of in situ atmospheric readings that will be relayed to the orbiter. Afterwards the orbiter will transition to the moon tour phase of the mission. The configuration chosen for the entry aeroshell was a 45° sphere-cone. This shape has been used in the past in the Pioneer Venus Galileo missions. However, the nose radius considered in the present study differed from the values used in either of the previous configurations, primarily to reduce the heat flux at the stagnation point. A two-step approach was used in the development of flight trajectories for the chosen configuration. In the first step, the trajectory code POST2 was used to screen the thousands of entry states provided by interplanetary trajectory simulations, which were terminated at an altitude of 2000 km from the reference surface (1 bar) of Uranus. The screening criteria were: (i) optimization of the communication geometry between the entry probe and orbiter to ensure at least 1 hour of science measurements, (ii) peak stagnation point pressures to be less than six bar, (iii) peak heat fluxes to be less than 5 kW/cm2; the latter two constraints being the limits of ground-test capabilities of the arc jets at NASA Ames Research Center. The entry team investigated two trajectories that met the criteria above, a shallow entry (high heat load ~44 kJ/cm2) and a steeper entry (high heat rate ~1950 W/cm2). In the second step, the two bounding candidate entry states from the POST2 screening process were used in developing flight trajectories using TRAJ coupled with FIAT (a materials thermal response and sizing code) and a margins policy to determine a margined uniform thickness (hence mass) of the forward heatshield material based on the aerothermal environments at the stagnation point. Since the combination of TRAJ and FIAT size the TPS based on stagnation point environments only, flow field computations using DPLR were necessary to determine turbulent aerothermal environments on the conical flank, and the augmentation of these environments due to surface roughness. The environments at select locations on the forward heatshield were then used to size the thermal protection material, with the largest thickness value then used to estimate the mass. The newly developed woven thermal protection material –HEEET (Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environments Technology) –was considered for the forward heatshield and PICA (Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator) was considered for the backshell. These NASA-developed materials are at TRL 6 and TRL 9, respectively. Furthermore, two options were considered for the HEEET material: (i) a dual-layer option with a denser recession layer on top and an insulative layer underneath it, and (ii) a single layer option consisting of the insulative layer alone. Results: It is clear that probe entry states are feasible and the selected TPS options are able to perform in the predicted aerothermal environments thus enabling the mission to meet of the descent probe portion of this flagship mission

Entry Descent and Landing↗

Recent Advancements in the PATO Material Response Code

Introduction: Predicting the complicated multiphysics phenomena during atmospheric entry requires high-fidelity modeling tools to refine estimates of mission risks during entry. To this end, new capabilities are being added to the Porous-material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO). PATO is an open-source software for Computational Material Response (CMR) of reactive porous materials submitted to high-temperature environments. The objective of this work is to highlight current efforts to add to and improve upon the modeling capabilities of PATO. These include efforts to loosely couple PATO with other discipline specialized codes including hypersonic Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to assess the interaction effects between pyrolysis gas blowing and the boundary layer, and Computational Solid Mechanics (CSM), to address modeling of mechanical erosion. Other refinements include surface phenomena modeling capabilities to address the effects of silicone-based coatings applied to the TPS during flight preparation, and a unified multiphase solver for a mixed porous-material and plain-fluid domain. Coupling CMR with CFD (CMR/CFD): A loose coupling between PATO and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) CFD code has been achieved by making use of a blowing boundary condition at the heatshield surface available in DPLR. Starting with heat flux estimates with no pyrolysis gas blowing at the surface, blowing gases are computed by the CMR and passed to the CFD such that aerothermal properties of the environment can be recomputed for a new CMR computation. This leads to an iterative process which is supplemented with an estimate of the radiative heat flux using the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) program. The entire iterative process is illustrated in Figure 1. This coupling strategy has been utilized in computing the MSL material response. The goal is to compare the coupled CMR/CFD results with material response results obtained using traditional blowing corrections. Coupling CMS with CMR: A mechanical erosion model is currently being implemented in PATO to account for the additional mass removal induced by high shear conditions. The modeling process at each timestep consists of updating the mechanical properties as a function of temperature and computing the stress tensor and displacement fields of the material. Then, a failure criteria model determines the regions in which the stress exceeds the ultimate strength values resulting in mesh movement to account for mass removal. This model allows the material response simulation to compute the recession due to both oxidation and shear-induced erosion. The model is demonstrated by computing material response of sphere-cone arc jet samples. Surface Modeling Capabilities: NuSil, a silicone-based coating, was sprayed onto the MSL and Mars 2020 heatshields to mitigate shedding of phenolic dust. To better understand the effects of the NuSil coating on the material response, a novel model has been implemented in PATO. In this model, the equilibrium of the charred NuSil surface is modeled as pure silica, and a constant offset, inspired by the classical spallation model, is added to the the char blowing rate and wall enthalpy to reproduce HyMETS experimental results. The model has also been used to estimate the 3D material response of the MSL heatshield. Unified Solver: In addition to the iterative loose coupling approach mentioned above, a multiphase unified solver is being developed to couple the environment (plain-fluid phase) and the porous-material phase. The solver is based on the volume averaged conservation of mass, momentum, and energy for the macroscale with closure models which include microscale effects through effective physicochemical properties. The unified solver has been used to compute flow through a porous plug and solve the Beavers and Joseph problem. Since the strong coupling between phases is inherent to this solver, modeling assumptions present in other coupling methods of material response are mitigated. This strategy also makes it feasible to capture the competition between surface and volume ablation in the same computational domain, which is usually not possible with other coupling approaches.

Material Response↗