Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Skip Entry”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Numerical Skip-Entry Guidance

This paper assesses a preliminary guidance and targeting strategy for accomplishing Skip-Entry (SE) flight during a lunar return-capsule entry flight. One of the primary benefits of flying a SE trajectory is to provide the crew with continuous Continental United States (CONUS) landing site access throughout the lunar month. Without a SE capability, the capsule must land either in water or at one of several distributed land sites in the Southern Hemisphere for a significant portion of a lunar month using a landing and recovery scenario similar to that employed during the Apollo program. With a SE trajectory, the capsule can land either in water at a site in proximity to CONUS or at one of several distributed landing sites within CONUS, thereby simplifying the operational requirements for crew retrieval and vehicle recovery, and possibly enabling a high degree of vehicle reusability. Note that a SE capability does not require that the vehicle land on land. A SE capability enables a longer-range flight than a direct-entry flight, which permits the vehicle to land at a much greater distance from the Entry Interface (EI) point. This does not exclude using this approach to push the landing point to a water location in proximity of CONUS and utilizing water or airborne recovery forces.

Tigges, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Comparison of Two Skip Entry Guidance Algorithms

The Orion capsule vehicle will have a Lift-to-Drag ratio (L/D) of 0.3-0.35. For an Apollo-like direct entry into the Earth's atmosphere from a lunar return trajectory, this L/D will give the vehicle a maximum range of about 2500 nm and a maximum crossrange of 216 nm. In order to y longer ranges, the vehicle lift must be used to loft the trajectory such that the aerodynamic forces are decreased. A Skip-Trajectory results if the vehicle leaves the sensible atmosphere and a second entry occurs downrange of the atmospheric exit point. The Orion capsule is required to have landing site access (either on land or in water) inside the Continental United States (CONUS) for lunar returns anytime during the lunar month. This requirement means the vehicle must be capable of flying ranges of at least 5500 nm. For the L/D of the vehicle, this is only possible with the use of a guided Skip-Trajectory. A skip entry guidance algorithm is necessary to achieve this requirement. Two skip entry guidance algorithms have been developed: the Numerical Skip Entry Guidance (NSEG) algorithm was developed at NASA/JSC and PredGuid was developed at Draper Laboratory. A comparison of these two algorithms will be presented in this paper. Each algorithm has been implemented in a high-fidelity, 6 degree-of-freedom simulation called the Advanced NASA Technology Architecture for Exploration Studies (ANTARES). NASA and Draper engineers have completed several monte carlo analyses in order to compare the performance of each algorithm in various stress states. Each algorithm has been tested for entry-to-target ranges to include direct entries and skip entries of varying length. Dispersions have been included on the initial entry interface state, vehicle mass properties, vehicle aerodynamics, atmosphere, and Reaction Control System (RCS). Performance criteria include miss distance to the target, RCS fuel usage, maximum g-loads and heat rates for the first and second entry, total heat load, and control system saturation. The comparison of the performance criteria has led to a down select and guidance merger that will take the best ideas from each algorithm to create one skip entry guidance algorithm for the Orion vehicle.

Rea, Jeremy R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Analytic Development of a Reference Profile for the First Entry in a Skip Atmospheric Entry

This note shows that a feasible reference drag profile for the first entry portion of a skip entry can be generated as a polynomial expression of the velocity. The coefficients of that polynomial are found through the resolution of a system composed of m + 1 equations, where m is the degree of the drag polynomial. It has been shown that a minimum of five equations (m = 4) are required to establish the range and the initial and final conditions on velocity and flight path angle. It has been shown that at least one constraint on the trajectory can be imposed through the addition of one extra equation in the system, which must be accompanied by the increase in the degree of the drag polynomial. In order to simplify the resolution of the system of equations, the drag was considered as being a probability density function of the velocity, with the velocity as a distribution function of the drag. Combining this notion with the introduction of empirically derived constants, it has been shown that the system of equations required to generate the drag profile can be successfully reduced to a system of linear algebraic equations. For completeness, the resulting drag profiles have been flown using the feedback linearization method of differential geometric control as a guidance law with the error dynamics of a second order homogeneous equation in the form of a damped oscillator. Satisfactory results were achieved when the gains in the error dynamics were changed at a certain point along the trajectory that is dependent on the velocity and the curvature of the drag as a function of the velocity. Future work should study the capacity to update the drag profile in flight when dispersions are introduced. Also, future studies should attempt to link the first entry, as presented and controlled in this note, with a more standard control concept for the second entry, such as the Apollo entry guidance, to try to assess the overall skip entry performance. A guidance law that includes an integral feedback term, as is the case in the actual Space Shuttle entry guidance and as is proposed in Ref 29, could be tried in future studies to assess whether its use results in an improvement of the tracking performance, and to evaluate the design needs when determining the control gains.

Garcia-Llama, Eduardo↗
NASA NTRS2007

Analytic Guidance for the First Entry in a Skip Atmospheric Entry

This paper presents an analytic method to generate a reference drag trajectory for the first entry portion of a skip atmospheric entry. The drag reference, expressed as a polynomial function of the velocity, will meet the conditions necessary to fit the requirements of the complete entry phase. The generic method proposed to generate the drag reference profile is further simplified by thinking of the drag and the velocity as density and cumulative distribution functions respectively. With this notion it will be shown that the reference drag profile can be obtained by solving a linear algebraic system of equations. The resulting drag profile is flown using the feedback linearization method of differential geometric control as guidance law with the error dynamics of a second order homogeneous equation in the form of a damped oscillator. This approach was first proposed as a revisited version of the Space Shuttle Orbiter entry guidance. However, this paper will show that it can be used to fly the first entry in a skip entry trajectory. In doing so, the gains in the error dynamics will be changed at a certain point along the trajectory to improve the tracking performance.

Garcia-Llama, Eduardo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Under Pressure: The Artemis I Heatshield Char Loss Investigation and Artemis II’s Successful Entry

Following the successful Artemis I skip reentry on December 11, 2022, unexpected char liberation from the Orion heat- shield prompted formation of an Anomaly Response Team to determine root cause and establish flight rationale and corrective actions for subsequent missions. Through a comprehensive investigation including detailed hardware analysis, modeling & simulation, and ground testing, the team determined that the low permeability Avcoat experienced extreme internal gas pressure buildup during the skip entry that could not adequately outgas, leading to crack formation and char liberation. Key discoveries included significant performance differences between permeable and impermeable heatshield regions and successful replication of the anomaly through ground testing. Based on extensive ground testing and analysis, Artemis II flew a modified trajectory without the skip entry to minimize crack-inducing conditions, and successfully splashed down on April 10, 2026 with significantly reduced char loss. For Artemis III and beyond, a corrective action was implemented to produce a more permeable version of Avcoat that will substantially reduce internal pressure accumulation during entry.

Artemis II↗
NASA NTRS2011

Orion Entry Handling Qualities Assessments

The Orion Command Module (CM) is a capsule designed to bring crew back from the International Space Station (ISS), the moon and beyond. The atmospheric entry portion of the flight is deigned to be flown in autopilot mode for nominal situations. However, there exists the possibility for the crew to take over manual control in off-nominal situations. In these instances, the spacecraft must meet specific handling qualities criteria. To address these criteria two separate assessments of the Orion CM s entry Handling Qualities (HQ) were conducted at NASA s Johnson Space Center (JSC) using the Cooper-Harper scale (Cooper & Harper, 1969). These assessments were conducted in the summers of 2008 and 2010 using the Advanced NASA Technology Architecture for Exploration Studies (ANTARES) six degree of freedom, high fidelity Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) simulation. This paper will address the specifics of the handling qualities criteria, the vehicle configuration, the scenarios flown, the simulation background and setup, crew interfaces and displays, piloting techniques, ratings and crew comments, pre- and post-fight briefings, lessons learned and changes made to improve the overall system performance. The data collection tools, methods, data reduction and output reports will also be discussed. The objective of the 2008 entry HQ assessment was to evaluate the handling qualities of the CM during a lunar skip return. A lunar skip entry case was selected because it was considered the most demanding of all bank control scenarios. Even though skip entry is not planned to be flown manually, it was hypothesized that if a pilot could fly the harder skip entry case, then they could also fly a simpler loads managed or ballistic (constant bank rate command) entry scenario. In addition, with the evaluation set-up of multiple tasks within the entry case, handling qualities ratings collected in the evaluation could be used to assess other scenarios such as the constant bank angle maintenance case. The 2008 entry assessment was divided into two sections (see Figure 1). Entry I was the first, high speed portion of a lunar return and Entry II was the second, lower speed portion of a lunar return, which is similar (but not identical) to a typical ISS return.

Bihari, B.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Orion Entry Performance-Based Center-of-Gravity Box

The Orion capsule is designed both for Low Earth Orbit missions to the ISS and for missions to the moon. For ISS class missions, the capsule will use an Apollo-style direct entry. For lunar return missions, depending on the timing of the mission, the capsule could perform a direct entry or a skip entry of up to 4800 n.mi. in order to land in the coastal waters of California. The physics of atmospheric re-entry determine the capability of the Orion vehicle. For a given vehicle mass and shape, physics tells us that the driving parameters for an entry vehicle are the hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) and the flight path angle at entry interface (gamma(sub EI)). The design of the Orion atmospheric re-entry must meet constraints during both nominal and dispersed flight conditions on landing accuracy, heating rate, total heat load, sensed acceleration, and proper disposal of the Service Module. These constraints define an entry corridor in the space of L/D-gamma(sub EI); if the vehicle falls within this corridor, then all constraints are met. The gamma(sub EI) dimension of the corridor can be further constrained by the gloads experienced during emergency entries. Thus, the entry performance for the Orion vehicle can be described completely by the L/D. Bounds on the hypersonic L/D necessary to achieve all the mission requirements can be defined for the given entry corridor. Landing accuracy performance drives the lower limit on L/D. In order to achieve the desired landing accuracy, a minimum L/D must be ensured. The design of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) drives the upper limit on L/D. A higher L/D can drive mass into the design of the TPS. Conversely, once the TPS is designed, the L/D must be ensured to stay below a certain limit in order for the TPS to stay within its design envelop. The L/D must stay within its upper and lower bounds during dispersed flight conditions. L/D is a function of both the aerodynamics and the center-of-gravity (CG) of the vehicle. The aerodynamics of the vehicle are determined by Computational Fluid Mechanics (CFD) and wind tunnel tests. However, the aerodynamics are not known precisely. Instead, an aerodynamic database has been developed where the aerodynamic coefficients are known to fall within a probabilistic band defined by upper and lower bounds. It is expected that the probabilistic band will shrink after the first missions are flown and real-world data is collected. Until that time, the Orion must be designed to the current aerodynamic database. Thus, for a given aerodynamic database with given uncertainties, the allowable range in L/D can be mapped to an allowable box for the CG location. The CG box is used to set requirements on the dispersions allowed for vehicle packaging and cargo storage. As the aerodynamic uncertainties decrease, the size of the CG box can increase. This paper discusses the technique used to map the minimum and maximum L/D bounds set by the entry performance requirements to the allowable dispersions in CG while accounting for aerodynamic uncertainties. The L/D is defined as the ratio of the lift force to the drag force. It is equivalent to the ratio of lift coefficient (C(sub L)) over drag coefficient (C(sub D)). C(sub L) and C(sub D) are functions of Mach number (M) and angle of attack (alpha). A Mach number of 25 is used as a measuring point of the hypersonic L/D. Variations in C(sub L), C(sub D) and alpha cause variations in L/D. Equation (1) shows the three contributions to the variation in L/D.

Rea, Jeremy R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Orion Entry Display Feeder and Interactions with the Entry Monitor System

The Orion spacecraft is designed to return astronauts to a landing within 10 km of the intended landing target from low Earth orbit, lunar direct-entry, and lunar skip-entry trajectories. Al pile the landing is nominally controlled autonomously, the crew can fly precision entries manually in the event of an anomaly. The onboard entry displays will be used by the crew to monitor and manually fly the entry, descent, and landing, while the Entry Monitor System (EMS) will be used to monitor the health and status of the onboard guidance and the trajectory. The entry displays are driven by the entry display feeder, part of the Entry Monitor System (EMS). The entry re-targeting module, also part of the EMS, provides all the data required to generate the capability footprint of the vehicle at any point in the trajectory, which is shown on the Primary Flight Display (PFD). It also provides caution and warning data and recommends the safest possible re-designated landing site when the nominal landing site is no longer within the capability of the vehicle. The PFD and the EMS allow the crew to manually fly an entry trajectory profile from entry interface until parachute deploy having the flexibility to manually steer the vehicle to a selected landing site that best satisfies the priorities of the crew. The entry display feeder provides data from the ENIS and other components of the GNC flight software to the displays at the proper rate and in the proper units. It also performs calculations that are specific to the entry displays and which are not made in any other component of the flight software. In some instances, it performs calculations identical to those performed by the onboard primary guidance algorithm to protect against a guidance system failure. These functions and the interactions between the entry display feeder and the other components of the EMS are described.

Baird, Darren↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cumulative Distribution Overlap Technique for Artemis Mission Public Entry Risk Assessment

The Artemis missions use a skip-entry profile to accomplish a recovery near the western US coastline, however, the service module debris must still be disposed of safely. For certain contingency return scenarios, the expected dispersed entry profile is biased from the well-analyzed corridor. A novel method is presented for assessing the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of these biased results to ensure they do not contribute additional probabilistic risk to the public. More specifically, the weight of the flight path angle dispersion "tail" of the CDF needs to remain below the well-assessed region. The details of how this method was actually used to screen and plan entry profiles for specific launch windows during the Artemis I mission are shown. This method has potential applicability in other problems where a biased distribution needs to be assessed against a well-defined "core" region.

Reentry↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cumulative Distribution Overlap Technique for Artemis Mission Public Entry Risk Assessment

The Artemis missions use a skip-entry profile to accomplish a recovery near the western US coastline, however, the service module debris must still be disposed of safely. For certain contingency return scenarios, the expected dispersed entry profile is biased from the well-analyzed corridor. A novel method is presented for assessing the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of these biased results to ensure they do not contribute additional probabilistic risk to the public. More specifically, the weight of the flight path angle dispersion "tail" of the CDF needs to remain below the well-assessed region. The details of how this method was actually used to screen and plan entry profiles for specific launch windows during the Artemis I mission are shown. This method has potential applicability in other problems where a biased distribution needs to be assessed against a well-defined "core" region.

Reentry↗
NASA NTRS2011

Orion Capsule Handling Qualities for Atmospheric Entry

Two piloted simulations were conducted at NASA's Johnson Space Center using the Cooper-Harper scale to study the handling qualities of the Orion Command Module capsule during atmospheric entry flight. The simulations were conducted using high fidelity 6-DOF simulators for Lunar Return Skip Entry and International Space Station Return Direct Entry flight using bank angle steering commands generated by either the Primary (PredGuid) or Backup (PLM) guidance algorithms. For both evaluations, manual control of bank angle began after descending through Entry Interface into the atmosphere until drogue chutes deployment. Pilots were able to use defined bank management and reversal criteria to accurately track the bank angle commands, and stay within flight performance metrics of landing accuracy, g-loads, and propellant consumption, suggesting that the pilotability of Orion under manual control is both achievable and provides adequate trajectory performance with acceptable levels of pilot effort. Another significant result of these analyses is the applicability of flying a complex entry task under high speed entry flight conditions relevant to the next generation Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle return from Mars and Near Earth Objects.

Tigges, Michael A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Orion Entry Monitor

NASA is scheduled to launch the Orion spacecraft atop the Space Launch System on Exploration Mission 1 in late 2018. When Orion returns from its lunar sortie, it will encounter Earth's atmosphere with speeds in excess of 11 kilometers per second, and Orion will attempt its first precision-guided skip entry. A suite of flight software algorithms collectively called the Entry Monitor has been developed in order to enhance crew situational awareness and enable high levels of onboard autonomy. The Entry Monitor determines the vehicle capability footprint in real-time, provides manual piloting cues, evaluates landing target feasibility, predicts the ballistic instantaneous impact point, and provides intelligent recommendations for alternative landing sites if the primary landing site is not achievable. The primary engineering challenges of the Entry Monitor is in the algorithmic implementation in making a highly reliable, efficient set of algorithms suitable for onboard applications.

Smith, Kelly M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Orion Entry, Descent, and Landing Performance and Mission Design

The Orion Vehicle is the next spacecraft to take humans into space and will include missions to ISS as well as missions to the Moon. As part of that challenge, the vehicle will have to accommodate multiple mission design concepts, since return from Low Earth Orbit and return from the Moon can be quite different. Commonality between the different missions as it relates to vehicle systems, guidance capability, and operations concepts is the goal. Several unique mission design concepts include the specification of multiple land-based landing sites for a vehicle with closed-loop direct and skip entry guidance, followed by a parachute descent and landing attenuation system. This includes the ability of the vehicle to accurately target and land at a designated landing site, including site location aspects, landing site size, and landing opportunities assessments. Analyses associated with these mission design and flight performance challenges and constraints will be discussed as well as potential operational concepts to provide feasibility and/or mission commonality.

Broome, Joel M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

PredGuid+A: Orion Entry Guidance Modified for Aerocapture

PredGuid+A software was developed to enable a unique numerical predictor-corrector aerocapture guidance capability that builds on heritage Orion entry guidance algorithms. The software can be used for both planetary entry and aerocapture applications. Furthermore, PredGuid+A implements a new Delta-V minimization guidance option that can take the place of traditional targeting guidance and can result in substantial propellant savings. PredGuid+A allows the user to set a mode flag and input a target orbit's apoapsis and periapsis. Using bank angle control, the guidance will then guide the vehicle to the appropriate post-aerocapture orbit using one of two algorithms: Apoapsis Targeting or Delta-V Minimization (as chosen by the user). Recently, the PredGuid guidance algorithm was adapted for use in skip-entry scenarios for NASA's Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle (MPCV). To leverage flight heritage, most of Orion's entry guidance routines are adapted from the Apollo program.

Lafleur, Jarret↗
NASA NTRS2024

Historical Retrospective on Orion GNC Design

On November 16, 2022, Artemis I successfully launched and began a nearly 26-day journey returning a human-rated spacecraft to the Moon for the first time in fifty years. The mission was a huge success and once again the world's attention was focused on the Moon. This paper will take a step back in time over the seventeen-plus years of design and development of the Orion Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC) system that carried the spacecraft 1.4 million miles around the Moon and landed safely back on earth off the coast of San Diego California. Key design decisions (good and not so good) and "first-ever" capabilities will be chronicled. This paper will explore such things as the most advanced on-board targeting system ever flown on a spacecraft, never-been-done-before autonomous planetary Optical Navigation, and the first-ever truly skip entry guided to the desired target within a few miles.

Guidance Navigation and Control↗
NASA NTRS2024

Historical Retrospective on Orion GNC Design

On November 16, 2022, Artemis I successfully launched and began a nearly 26-day journey returning a human-rated spacecraft to the Moon for the first time in fifty years. The mission was a huge success and once again the world's attention was focused on the Moon. This paper will take a step back in time over the seventeen-plus years of design and development of the Orion Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC) system that carried the spacecraft 1.4 million miles around the Moon and landed safely back on earth off the coast of San Diego California. Key design decisions (good and not so good) and "first-ever" capabilities will be chronicled. This paper will explore such things as the most advanced on-board targeting system ever flown on a spacecraft, never-been-done-before autonomous planetary Optical Navigation, and the first-ever truly skip entry guided to the desired target within a few miles.

Guidance Navigation and Control↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA CEV Reference Entry GN&C System and Analysis

As part of its overall objectives, the Orion spacecraft will be required to perform entry and Earth landing functions for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Lunar missions. Both of these entry scenarios will begin with separation of the Service Module (SM), making them unique from other Orion mission phases in that only the Command Module (CM) portion of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be involved, requiring a CM specific Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) system. Also common to these mission scenarios will be the need for GN&C to safely return crew (or cargo) to earth within the dynamic thermal and structural constraints of entry and within acceptable accelerations on the crew, utilizing the limited aerodynamic performance of the CM capsule. The lunar return mission could additionally require an initial atmospheric entry designed to support a precision skip and second entry, all to maximize downrange performance and ensure landing in the United States. This paper describes the Entry GN&C reference design, developed by the NASA-led team, that supports these entry scenarios and that was used to validate the Orion System requirements. Description of the reference design will include an overview of the GN&C functions, avionics, and effectors and will relate these to the specific design drivers of the entry scenarios, as well as the desire for commonality in vehicle systems to support the different missions. The discussion will also include the requirement for an Emergency Entry capability beyond that of the nominal performance of the multi-string GNC system, intended to return the crew to the earth in a survivable but unguided manner. Finally, various analyses will be discussed, including those completed to support validation efforts of the current CEV requirements, along with those on-going and planned with the intention to further refine the requirements and to support design development work in conjunction with the prime contractor. Some of these ongoing analyses will include work to size effectors (jets) and fuel budgets, to refine skip entry concepts, to characterize navigation performance and uncertainties, to provide for SM disposal offshore and to identify requirements to support target site selection.

Munday, S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Orion Artemis I Entry Performance

The Artemis I mission successfully demonstrated the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Module ability to perform a skip re-entry with predictive guidance to reach the target splashdown location. Skip re-entry improves the down-range capability for precision landing, allowing Orion to return to the continental United States at any time during the lunar month, and improves the survivability from a wide range of return trajectories. This paper presents analysis of Orion skip re-entry Guidance and Control performance for the Artemis I mission utilizing recorded flight data and high fidelity simulation data. Descriptions of the related Guidance and Control designs are provided for understanding.

Artemis 1↗