NASA NTRS2024
This document provides an overview of the aerothermodynamic analyses performed by the Aerothermodynamics Branch at NASA Langley Research Center for the Rocket Lab Venus Probe (RLVP). In addition to defining the baseline heating environment to the heatshield, this document pursues the experimental validation of key physical models at RLVP-relevant conditions. This experimental validation analysis, which captures the model form uncertainty, is used as one of two primary components of the margin assessment, where the other component is the parametric uncertainty. These model form (experimental) and parametric uncertainty components are used to construct a spatial and time varying margin for the heating to the RLVP heatshield. The margin is evaluated as the sum of the parametric and model form uncertainty components. The model form uncertainty is defined as the difference between the RLVP-relevant measurements and their simulations, using the upper limit uncertainty bounds for both the measurements and simulations in the comparisons. The differences in the dominant physics in the stagnation region and flank lead to the separate RLVP-relevant measurements for assessing the model form uncertainty in these two regions. These regions are addressed as follows: Stagnation Region Heating Environment: For the high-temperature stagnation-region, both the radiative heating and impact of blowing on convective heating are significant, while the impacts of turbulence and roughness are negligible. Coupled radiation and ablation LAURA/HARA solutions with ray-tracing provide the radiative heating over the entire vehicle, including the contributions from the Venus atmosphere and ablation species. Non-ablating LAURA simulations provide the convective heating. During the material-response computation typically used for TPS sizing, this non-ablating convective heating is corrected for the impact of ablation using the blowing correction. Coupled ablation LAURA simulations that capture finite-rate sur-face processes show that this blowing correction may be non-conservative over most of the heatshield. This non-conservatism is due to hydrogen recombination in the finite-rate surface model, which tends to increase the coupled ablation convective heating to near the non-ablating values, therefore making any reduction in the non-ablating value through the blowing correction non-conservative. This non-conservatism due to H catalysis is captured in the parametric component of the margin. The best available ground-test measurements that capture the impact of blowing on stagnation region convective heating, at RLVP-relevant conditions, indicate that the current blowing reduction model is non-conservative by up to 20% at RLVP-relevant blowing rates (the coupled blowing simulations were also non-conservative). Because of the relatively low velocity of the ground tests and the non-Venus atmospheric chemistry, these measurements do not capture the chemistry and therefore do not inform the uncertainty due to H catalysis. However, they do capture the fluid mechanics of blowing. The non-conservatism of the blowing correction implied by these measurements is covered by the model form component of the margin, which leads to total margin values over 50%. For the radiative heating, the shock-tube informed bias approach suggests a model form uncertainty of roughly 20%, while the parametric uncertainty analysis suggests values over 100%. The combined stagnation-point radiation margin of over 100% leads to peak margined radiative heating values of over300 W/cm2, which remains small relative to the peak margined convective heating of nearly 2000 W/cm2. Based on this analysis, at the stagnation point, the peak margined heat rate is 2203 W/cm2 and the margined total heat load is 31.5 kJ/cm2 for the current nominal trajectory. Flank Heating Environment: The forebody flank (and near-shoulder) heating environment is dominated by the impact of turbulence, roughness augmentation, and ablation on the convective heating. An extensive collection of ground test measurements with RLVP-relevant turbulence and roughness is studied to show that the maximum difference between the simulated and measured convective heating is 5%. However, with the exception of the Holden measurements from the 1980s, these measurements do not include roughness elements extending into the supersonic region of the boundary layer, which is likely to occur for RLVP (due to the 45 degree sphere-cone geometry). The interaction between the supersonic flow and roughness could cause convective heating augmentation fundamentally different than for locally subsonic flow. Although these Holden measurements are consistent with the other measurements considered, another path was pursued to assure that the rough-ness height extending into supersonic flow does not fundamentally change the roughness augmentation. This additional path was a computational effort to resolve the roughness elements in the CFD grid, so that the interaction be-tween the roughness elements and locally supersonic flow may be simulated in detail. This roughness-resolved CFD simulation is feasible because of the RLVP forebody TPS’s patterned roughness, which may be approximated analytically, and because of the axisymmetric nominal flow field, which allows a narrow surface region to be simulated and therefore make the computational expense feasible. These grid-resolved roughness simulations, which are performed at actual RLVP flight conditions, result in heating augmentation values that are below the design approach for roughness augmentation. This provides evidence that the design approach for RLVP roughness augmentation is sufficient. Based on this analysis, at this flank or near-shoulder location, the peak margined total heat rate is 2088 W/cm2and the margined total heat load is 26.0 kJ/cm2for the current nominal trajectory. Heat flux, shear, pressure and heat transfer coefficient at the RLVP stagnation point and near shoulder location are evaluated for the entire trajectory, and curved fit to a functional form of F=AρB∞UC∞. These simplified relationships for the nominal and margined aerothermal environments are referred to as aerothermal indicators, and presented at the end of this document.