SPORE Mission Design - Georgia Tech SSDL - Georgia Institute of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

segment, while the “cool-down” option was used for a 10,000 second cool down period. The surface temperature was approximated assuming that the re-radiated heat flux is equivalent to the convective and radiative heating, as shown in Equation 39. 1/4 æ T surf = q ö æ rerad ç ÷ » q conv + q rad ö ç ÷ è es ø è es ø (39) The surface pressures were estimated using normal shock relationships at the vehicle nose, using the freestream density and vehicle Mach number. A plot of the total stagnation point heat flux for the worst case heating trajectories, along with the calculated surface temperatures and pressures are shown in 1/4 Figure 42.1U worst case heating trajectories: (a) total stagnation point heat flux, (b) surface pressure, and (c) surface temperature. Figure 43.2x2U worst case heating trajectories: (a) total stagnation point heat flux, (b) surface pressure, and (c) surface temperature. Figure 42and Figure 43for the 1U and 2x2U vehicle respectively. As one can see, the worst case surface temperatures correspond to the GTO return trajectory with the worst case heat flux. Therefore, this assigned temperature and pressure profile were used for the 1-D FIAT heat soak back analysis and heat sink thickness optimization. The material stack-up used is that described in Section IV: PICA, RTV-560V, Al-6061 forebody structure, Al-6061 heat sink material, radiative gap (air), and the electronics boxes (Al-6061). For the 1U
worst case heating trajectory from GTO, the optimized heat sink thickness was determined to be 41.2 mm. For the 2x2U design, the optimized heat sink thickness for the GTO case was 74.4 mm. The temperature profiles at the base of each of the layers in the material stack-up are shown in Figure 44and Figure 45 for the 1U and 2x2U vehicles respectively. As one can see the base of the electronics boxes or payload is maintained below the 50 o C constraint for the 1U vehicle and 25 o C for the 2x2U vehicle. Figure 44.1U temperature profiles for the worst case heating trajectory. Figure 45. 2x2U temperature profiles for the worst case heating trajectory.
Page 1 and 2: SPORE Mission Design Nicole Bauer G
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Nomenclature ....
Page 5 and 6: Figure 39: Depicts Meyer’s Theory
Page 7 and 8: Figure 1. Diagram of SPORE design s
Page 9 and 10: Table 2.Mass budget for 1U entry ve
Page 11 and 12: Figure 5. Coordinate system used to
Page 13 and 14: Prime Meridian refers to the line o
Page 15 and 16: ̇ ̇ ⃗ (If eZ the ω ) (12) ⃗
Page 17 and 18: Table 8.The altitude of the LEO tra
Page 19 and 20: Figure 6. Deorbit simulation block
Page 21 and 22: Figure 8.SPORE EDL Sequence of even
Page 23 and 24: Figure 11.GTO 1U trajectory with st
Page 25 and 26: Altitude, km Acceleration, Earth g'
Page 27 and 28: 6 x 106 Stagnation Point Heat Rate
Page 29 and 30: 4.7.2 One variable at a time sensit
Page 31 and 32: Change in Peak Acceleration (Earth
Page 33 and 34: latitude (deg) latitude (deg) Both
Page 35 and 36: (a) (b) Figure 29. (a) 2x2U total a
Page 37 and 38: Number of Cases Number of Cases Geo
Page 39 and 40: 4.8 Parachute Selection To keep the
Page 41 and 42: Table 18. Summary of parameters use
Page 43: Number of Cases Number of Cases 200
Page 47 and 48: References 1. D. A. Spencer and R.

SPORE Mission Design - Georgia Tech SSDL - Georgia Institute of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?