Aerodynamic Stability and Performance of Next-Generation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 1, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-1356 potentially introduce a large, violent moment on the payload if it were suddenly displaced from the trim total angle of attack due to a gust of wind or other perturbation. Another important feature of the curve is the peak C m value. Higher peak values could also potentially cause violent motion and could cause destabilizing system dynamics. Therefore, a lower overall C m curve is considered to be beneficial. Figure 10 shows a plot of the pitch damping curve for the RS-1 canopy. In this case, the pitch damping coefficient at the trim total angle of attack is less than zero; therefore, the canopy is dynamically stable at this point. However, the curves of different canopies vary widely and there is no overall trend regarding their dynamic stability at the trim total angle of attack. To obtain a smooth curve it was necessary to increase the bin size to 1.5°. However, the coefficients values still scatter towards lower total angles of attack. As a result, it is difficult to determine the shape of the pitch damping curve, which makes comparisons between canopies difficult. D. Comparison to Heritage Wind Tunnel Results Prior to the Mars Exploration Rover missions, wind tunnel tests of various DGB parachutes were performed in the TDT to determine their drag performance and static stability behavior. 2 Moment values for each canopy were measured by constraining the parachute in a fixture that was rotated through a range of angles of attack. The data from this test have served as the basis of the parachute aerodynamics models for all subsequent U.S. Mars missions. In addition, the success of the DGB parachutes used in these missions demonstrates that these data are representative of Mars flight conditions and are the closest aerodynamics set to true parachute motion currently available. Therefore, it is useful to compare the results of the present NFAC test to the TDT test to ensure that the aerodynamics predicted by each test are not in conflict. As part of the TDT test campaign, a sub-scale version of the Mars Viking DGB was flown that had a nominal diameter of approximately 5.2 ft and was constructed from Figure 10. Dynamic moment coefficients as a function of total angle of attack for the RS-1 canopy. Figure 11. Comparison of C m curves as a function of total angle of attack for wind tunnel tests performed in the NFAC and the TDT. MIL-C-7020 Type III nylon. This test was run at sea-level density and a dynamic pressure of 16 psf. This canopy is very similar to the Mars Phoenix Scout canopy (DGB-1) flown in the present NFAC test since the Phoenix DGB gap and band heights were based on the Viking configuration and the fabric permeability of Type I and Type III MIL-C-7020 nylon are similar. The two NFAC DGB-1 tests were conducted at dynamic pressures of 0.8 and 2.5 psf. Figure 11 shows the resulting C m curves from each of the tests. Comparison between the TDT and NFAC tests is difficult because the runs were performed at very different dynamic pressures. However, it can be seen that the trim total angle of attack decreases with increasing dynamic pressure, which was similarly observed from the TDT testing. 2 Additionally, the peak C m and the general shape of the C m curves appear to change with the dynamic pressure. E. Apparent Mass Effects Equation 16 shows that the apparent inertia model scales with the parachute nominal diameter to the fifth power (given that the distance R cm is a function of the nominal diameter). Assuming that the error in the apparent inertia is a constant percentage its nominal value, error in the apparent mass model would be significantly greater for large diameter parachutes than for small parachutes. Uncertainty related to the apparent inertia of the parachute canopies tested at NFAC, as stated in Section III.D, may be one potential cause of the differing C m curves shown in Fig. 11. 12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 1, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-1356 One apparent inertia coefficient value of 0.05 was used to analyze all of the canopies, despite that they had different geometric porosity and were operated at slightly different dynamic pressures. The data set in Ref. 9 does not provide enough data to intelligently select an apparent inertia coefficient that depends on geometric porosity and dynamic pressure. The lowest apparent inertia coefficient cited in Ref. 9 was 0.087, which corresponded to a ringslot canopy with a geometric porosity of approximately 27%. However, this apparent inertia coefficient resulted in a C m curve that differed significantly from the existing DGB data, as shown in Fig. 12. As such, a value of 0.05 was used, which provided a slightly better correlation with the existing DGB data. F. Comparison Between Canopy Aerodynamics Figure 12. C m curves calculated using varying The stability metrics for each canopy are tabulated in apparent inertia coefficients for the DGB-1 canopy Table 1 along with their averaged tangential force compared to heritage data. coefficient (C T ) and approximate geometric porosity. Desirable canopies have low trim total angles of attack and high averaged tangential force coefficients. Canopy Number Canopy Description Table 1. Summary of canopy stability and drag results. 1. Disk-gap-band Comparison Figure 13 shows the static stability curves for the DGB- 1 and DGB-2 canopies at the same dynamic pressure. While both canopies have the same geometric porosity, the DGB-1 has a higher total porosity (15-18%) than DGB-2 due to higher fabric permeability. Figure 13 indicates that, for the two DGB parachutes tested, higher fabric permeability effectively decreases the peak C m value, the trim α T , and the tangential force. The TDT test was conducted with DGB’s having two different material permeabilities as well and trim α T was similarly observed to decrease. 2 Since DGB parachutes have displayed acceptable stability behavior during prior U.S. Mars missions, the overall performance of each parachute can be determined in relation to the performance of the DGB (for example, equivalent stability with enhanced drag). Geometric Porosity (%) Trim α T (deg) (1/deg) Averaged C T DGB-1 DGB with high porosity fabric 13 8 -6 x10 -3 0.59 DGB-2 DGB with low porosity fabric 13 15 -9 x10 -3 0.81 RS-0 Ringsail design tested in 2005 10 23 -6 x10 -3 0.99 RS-1 RS-0 without 2/3 ring 19 13 23 -8 x10 -3 0.90 RS-2 RS-0 without 27% rings 17, 18, 19 15 24 -7 x10 -3 0.91 RS-3 RS-0 without ring 19 16 21 -8 x10 -3 0.86 RS-4 RS-0 without rings 18, 19 22 19 -11 x10 -3 0.77 DS-0 Disksail as built 9 23 -9 x10 -3 1.03 DS-1 DS-0 without 1/2 ring 11 11 19 -8 x10 -3 0.98 DS-2 DS-0 without ring 11 13 13 -15 x10 -3 0.92 DS-3 DS-0 without ring 11, 1/2 ring 17 16 12 -13 x10 -3 0.86 DS-4 DS-0 without ring 11, 1/2 rings 17, 18 19 14 -10 x10 -3 0.82 SS Starsail as built 13 23 -5 x10 -3 0.83 Figure 13. Comparison of C m curves for the DGB canopies. 13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Page 1 and 2: AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator System
Page 3 and 4: Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHN
Page 5 and 6: load arm and ball joint. Mounted to
Page 7 and 8: ! # # # " x y z $ ! & # & = # & % "
Page 9 and 10: ! "# C m α C mα C m0 I yy a T = Q
Page 11: eginning to return to the center of
Page 15 and 16: The magnitude of the geometric poro
Page 17 and 18: V w = V 2 2 c + R cp θ 2 − 2V c
Page 19 and 20: C. Local Wind Velocity at the Canop

Aerodynamic Stability and Performance of Next-Generation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?