Engineers in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA Ames Research Center developed a fully instrumented, small atmospheric entry probe called SPRITE (Small Probe Reentry Investigation for TPS Engineering). SPRITE, conceived as a flight test bed for thermal protection materials, was tested at full scale in an arc-jet facility so that the aerothermal environments the probe experiences over portions of its flight trajectory and in the arc-jet are similar. This ground-to-flight traceability enhances the ability of mission designers to evaluate margins needed in the design of thermal protection systems (TPS) of larger scale atmospheric entry vehicles

Agrawal, P.

Arnold, J.

Cassell, A.

Empey, D. M.

Gorbunov, S.

Howard, A.

Mangini, N.

Peterson, K.

Prabhu, Dinesh K.

Skokova, K.

Swanson, G.

Venkatapathy, E.

English

University of Kentucky

1 SPRITE: A TPS Test Bed For Ground and Flight This work was made possible by MMEEV, Orion & MEDLI Projects, as well as the TS Division @ the NASA ARC 5th Ablation Workshop, U Kentucky, Lexington Feb. 28-Mar. 1, 2012 P. Agrawal, A. Cassell, N. Mangini, K. Peterson D. Prabhu,  K. Skokova, G. Swanson ERC, Inc. D. Empey, S. Gorbunov A. Howard Sierra Lobo, Inc. Neerim Corp. J. Arnold and E. Venkatapathy NASA Ames Research Center 2 Small Probe Re-entry Investigation for TPS Engineering TPS – Thermal Protection System Acronymese MISP – MEDLI Integrated Sensor Plug MEDLI – MSL EDL Instrumentation MSL – Mars Science Laboratory EDL – Entry, Descent and Landing 3 Outline  TPS Design Process  Current Arc-Jet Philosophy for Testing & Qualifying TPS Materials  Motivation for SPRITE  SPRITE as a Flight-Test Paradigm  SPRITE as a Ground-Test Paradigm  Lessons Learned  The Next Steps on the Ground  The Next Steps in Flight  Acknowledgments 4   The current TPS design process is much more sophisticated than before   Reliance on improved/calibrated modeling and simulation procedures   Fewer, but focused, experiments (ground or flight, esp. flight)   Predict aerothermal environments for a given geometry and ref. trajectory(ies)   Trajectory dispersions   Shape change   Uncertainties in aerothermal environments   Select and size TPS materials for a margined bondline temperature constraint   Heritage, i.e., TRL of TPS material, is important!   Choice of materials (nonablative, or ablative: Carbon- or Silicon-based)   Material stack up   Choice of bondline adhesives   Uncertainties in materials properties   Material thermal response model and its uncertainties TPS Design Process Response models for TPS anchored to arc-jet tests & not flight experiments! 5   Arc-jet test gas (usually air, sometimes N2) not necessarily representative of the planetary atmosphere   For Mars entries – enriching air with additional O2 is one alternative   Geometric similitude between flight and test articles is not necessary   Outer mold lines of flight and arc-jet test articles need not be geometrically related   TPS material (structure and stackup) is identical to that which is flown   Dynamic and boundary layer similitude between ground and flight is not necessary either.    TPS response history or “memory” not considered    Attempt to replicate flight-like enthalpy levels    Ground tests are “point tests”    Usually a single combination of heat flux-pressure   For glassy ablators a single combination of heat flux-pressure-shear is important	Test & Qualification of TPS Materials: Arc-Jets Arc-jets at ARC and JSC currently cannot replicate radiative heating environments, and have limited turbulent flow capabilities 6 “Point Test” Approach to Materials Test & Qual: TRL Elevation (to 5, if no flight heritage for material) Matching flight enthalpy in an arc-jet means trade between chemical energy (Tarc Current/Flow) and kinetic energy (Varc Nozzle Size) 7 •  Freestream conditions time-varying in flight, but held constant in arc-jet test •  Heat flux modulation is difficult from a facility operations viewpoint –  Attempted during TPS development program for MPCV Time, s q, w/cm2 Flight Profile (heat flux history at one point on the TPS) Arc-jet high Condition Arc-jet medium Condition Arc-jet low Condition Time, s q, w/cm2 Flight Profile Modulated arc-jet Profile Traditional (Same heat load at different heat flux levels) Desirable (Stepped/Piecewise constant heat load) The Traditional “Test Like You Fly” Paradigm 8   Do we know how well we have designed the TPS of the flight vehicle?   Do we have a clear understanding of the ‘conservatism’ in the design?   Can we develop a low cost flight experiment to address this ‘conservatism’?   Can we replicate the design environments around a concept flight vehicle?   Can the low-cost configuration be tested in a ground-based facility?   Three immediate advantages of a low cost flight experiment:   Significant reduction in the number of ground-based arc-jet tests?   A TPS test bed that provides actual flight environment exposure to candidate materials    Reference for future TPS designs   Risk reduction in technologies   More realistic data for validation of theoretic materials models, with link between gound and flight => TRL elevation of materials   The flight experiment(s) can enable/evaluate S&MA aspects of COTS missions   PICA-X and gap fillers on Dragon.  Motivation 9 • Arc-jet conditions are usually held constant, but imposed flight aerothermal environment and ablator response “memory” can affect flight reality • Example: Apollo flight data showed “coking” of char, but coking not observed in accepted pre-flight arc jet results Flight Aerothermal Environment Flight Reality Arc-jet Aerothermal Environment Arc-jet based Response As-built Configuration Arc-jet Configuration Flight Prediction Material Model Not the same Similar! Fly what you test TRACEABILITY Paradigm Shift: “Fly What You Test” A flight experiment with capsule recovery back on Earth can help anchor/validate the material model calibrated to arc-jet tests. 10 SPRITE as a Flight-Test Paradigm 11 Parachute Instrumented TPS Plugs Data Acquisition Antenna •  Initial SPRITE geometry modeled along lines of Deep Space 2 (DS-2) –  14-inch dia 45° sphere-cone body with rounded back shell for aerodynamic stability •  Test-what-you-fly paradigm –  Test at flight-scale (geometric) in a ground-based facility –  Attempt to replicate aerothermal environments along portions of the actual flight trajectory by testing in an arc-jet SPRITE Concept Geometry 12 SPRITE Concept of Operations (Con-Ops) Launch Secondary Payload Entry V =7600 m/s Peak Heating Peak Deceleration Supersonic Subsonic Supersonic Stability In-Space (1-4 Weeks) Hypersonic Subsonic Drag Stability Parachute Deployment Mission System Design Concept of Operations Flight System Design Recovery Operations Data Analysis Land at predetermined range  Deorbit, Descent & Landing, and Recovery as important aspects that remain to be addressed 13 Ground Test Sub-orbital LEO GTO Entry Velocity, km/s N/A 2 to 5 7 to 8 9 to 11 Estimated De-orbit ∆V, m/s N/A N/A 200-300 <50 Est. Environments Q = Heat flux, W/cm2 P = Pressure, kPa S = Shear, Pa Q:50-400 P:0.1-12 S:50-250 Q: 100-200 P: 15-35 S:100-200 Q: 100-400 P: 10-25 S:100-300 Q: 800-1000 P: 20-50 S:300-600 Subsystem w/ Margin (kg) Flight Instrumentation 1.807 Communication  0.913 Command & Data Handling 0.480 Electrical Power System 0.922 Recovery System 1.300 Aeroshell 2.909 Structures 2.990    Totals 11.322 SPRITE (As Secondary Payload) Systems Analysis •  As secondary, significant cost relief compared to a focused flight test program •  Small size of flight probe means fewer issues with turbulence and radiation 14 Example: SPRITE Applicability to Orion  Body points shown on centerline only  Body is axisymmetric and the trajectory is ballistic   Body points can be distributed over the acreage (consider as sensor locations)  Coverage of CEV ISS-return trajectories in entry regimes of relevance 15 SPRITE as a Ground-Test Paradigm 16 Objectives of the Ground Test For an initial proof-of-concept test, to demonstrate: •  Feasibility of arc-jet testing flight articles at full scale (flight scale) •  Feasibility of in situ measurements of temperature, strain and recession using a data acquisition system mounted inside the test article •  That a combination of simulation tools can be used to predict material response, thermal environments and thermal structural behavior •  No particular flight profile targeted for first ground test of probes •  TPS selected by availability: PICA for heatshield and LI-2200 for aft •  TPS materials not sized for any specific heat load 17 •  Mechanical Design and Fabrication (TPS and Structure) •  In situ Data Acquisition System Design and Fabrication –  Built in-house with off-the-shelf electronics (not rad-hardened) •  CFD (DPLR) for predicting aerothermal environments –  Pre-test predictions to determine flow blockage issues –  Boundary conditions for thermal/thermal structural analysis to estimate exposure time given constraints on battery temperature –  Post-test predictions to determine material thermal response •  Thermal Analysis –  FIAT and TITAN for the TPS materials response –  MARC for internal temperatures •  Thermal Structural Analysis (MARC and NASTRAN) Engineering of a Small Probe: The First Steps 18 14-inch (diameter) SPRITE probe – 45° sphere-cone Parachute Instrumented TPS Plugs Data Acquisition System Antenna Arc-jet Test Article Flight Article Instrumented TPS Plugs PICA (Stardust HS) LI-2200 (Shuttle Tile) •  Backshell geometry different from that of flight test for test design simplicity 19 Distribution of Sensors (K-Type Thermocouples) Mid-cone MISP plug: In-depth TCs 22,23,24 Bottom-cone MISP plug: In-depth TCs 25,26,27 Stagnation MISP plug: In-depth TCs 1,2,3 + HEAT sensor DAS box Batt. •  MEDLI-type MISP used, i.e., fully-instrumented plugs with thermocouples at various depths •  Thermocouple signals acquired by internal DAS and facility DAS Arc-jet Facility DAS SPRITE Integrated DAS 20 •  Two 14-in (36 cm) SPRITE probes designed •  Both successfully tested in AHF (20MW arc-jet) at 2000 A of heater current •  Probe exposed to facility max heating conditions for 50 seconds •  Probe allowed to cool down for an hour –  Sensor data acquired all through exposure and cool down –  Cool down attempted with and without venting of the probe interior Arc-Jet Tests Pre-Test (18-in nozzle AHF) During Test (Test AHF 295) Post-Test Charred PICA Heatshield 21 Lessons Learned •  We can test a probe of a size that could also fly in space and reenter the atmosphere. •  Data can be collected reliably in a small probe by a data acquisition system in the plasma flow. •  The project exercised all the analysis tools that were initially identified and showed that good predictions of environments, structural and thermal behavior could be made using those tools.  All objectives of the ground-test were achieved Conditions achieved in AHF295 22 The Next Steps on the Ground •  Convert SPRITE to an arc-jet test paradigm which will supplement traditional stagnation & shear (wedge or swept cylinder) testing of materials. –  Leverage the ability to achieve combination of pressure, heat flux and shear in a single test. –  SPRITE will prove useful in testing new flexible or conformable ablative materials for which performance under shear loads is important. –  The aftshell of SPRITE can also be used to test materials (non-ablative or ablative). –  Cavities representative of MMOD damage can be instrumented and tested. Spatial variation of aerothermal environments in a single test will provide ample data for V&V of materials response models for various pressure-heat flux-shear combinations 23 The Next Steps in Flight •  Use SPRITE as the low-cost flight test paradigm to raise TRL of newer ablative materials –  Start with balloon-drop tests of probes with pre-ablated heat shield to understand  •  Descent and landing risk •  Recovery options –  Launch fully instrumented probes (with MEDLI-like sensor plugs and in situ data acquisition system), de-orbit for atmospheric entry •  Possibility of secondary payload, but limited choice of orbit (LEO, GTO, …) •  Possibility of multiple payloads in a single launch •  Multiple objectives can be achieved, including a better understanding of ‘design margins’ Ablative TPS materials thermal response models anchored to arc-jet tests and flight tests is the final desired goal 24 Acknowledgments Special Thanks To: Y-K Chen Don Ebaugh Johnny Fu Hiep Khuc Joe Mach Matt Switzer Imelda Terrazas-Salinas Jeremy Vander Kam To the students from Georgia Tech and Idaho State University who worked on the development of several inter-related concepts. To the arc-jet crew at NASA ARC who put in the hard work to help us advance this concept.  25 •  Several presentations at the 6th, 7th, and 8th International Planetary Probe Workshops •  Focused technical session at the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nashville, Jan. 2012: 1.  Venkatapathy, E, et al., “Overview OF Recent Advancements in  Small Probe Reentry Investigation for TPS Engineering (SPRITE),” Presentation instead of AIAA Paper 2012-212 2.  Spencer, D, et al., “Small Probes for Orbital Return of Experiments,” AIAA Paper 2012-213 3.  Juneau, J, et al., “SPORE Entry, Descent and Landing,” AIAA Paper 2012-214 4.  Empey et al., “Small Probe Reentry Investigation for TPS Engineering (SPRITE),” AIAA Paper 2012-215 5.  Prabhu, et al., “Flowfield Analysis of a Small Entry Probe (SPRITE) Tested in an Arc Jet,” AIAA Paper 2012-216(217) 6.  Swanson, G, et al., “Development of an Integrated Data Acquisition System for a Small Flight Probe,” AIAA Paper 2012-218 7.  Agrawal, P, et al., “Thermal Analysis of Small Re-entry Probes,” AIAA Paper 2012-219 References/Documentation 

SPRITE: A TPS Test Bed for Ground and Flight

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&amp;context=ablation

SPRITE: A TPS Test Bed for Ground and Flight

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky