Engineering topics

Hanke, Jeremy L.

Publications and source records attributed to Hanke, Jeremy L..

7 records

NASA NTRS2011

Assessment of CFD-based Response Surface Model for Ares I Supersonic Ascent Aerodynamics

The Ascent Force and Moment Aerodynamic (AFMA) Databases (DBs) for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) were typically based on wind tunnel (WT) data, with increments provided by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for aspects of the vehicle that could not be tested in the WT tests. During the Design Analysis Cycle 3 analysis for the outer mold line (OML) geometry designated A106, a major tunnel mishap delayed the WT test for supersonic Mach numbers (M) greater than 1.6 in the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center, and the test delay pushed the final delivery of the A106 AFMA DB back by several months. The aero team developed an interim database based entirely on the already completed CFD simulations to mitigate the impact of the delay. This CFD-based database used a response surface methodology based on radial basis functions to predict the aerodynamic coefficients for M > 1.6 based on only the CFD data from both WT and flight Reynolds number conditions. The aero team used extensive knowledge of the previous AFMA DB for the A103 OML to guide the development of the CFD-based A106 AFMA DB. This report details the development of the CFD-based A106 Supersonic AFMA DB, constructs a prediction of the database uncertainty using data available at the time of development, and assesses the overall quality of the CFD-based DB both qualitatively and quantitatively. This assessment confirms that a reasonable aerodynamic database can be constructed for launch vehicles at supersonic conditions using only CFD data if sufficient knowledge of the physics and expected behavior is available. This report also demonstrates the applicability of non-parametric response surface modeling using radial basis functions for development of aerodynamic databases that exhibit both linear and non-linear behavior throughout a large data space.

Hanke, Jeremy L.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Detailed Uncertainty Analysis of the Ares I A106 Liftoff/Transition Database

The Ares I A106 Liftoff/Transition Force and Moment Aerodynamics Database describes the aerodynamics of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) from the moment of liftoff through the transition from high to low total angles of attack at low subsonic Mach numbers. The database includes uncertainty estimates that were developed using a detailed uncertainty quantification procedure. The Ares I Aerodynamics Panel developed both the database and the uncertainties from wind tunnel test data acquired in the NASA Langley Research Center s 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel Test 591 using a 1.75 percent scale model of the Ares I and the tower assembly. The uncertainty modeling contains three primary uncertainty sources: experimental uncertainty, database modeling uncertainty, and database query interpolation uncertainty. The final database and uncertainty model represent a significant improvement in the quality of the aerodynamic predictions for this regime of flight over the estimates previously used by the Ares Project. The maximum possible aerodynamic force pushing the vehicle towards the launch tower assembly in a dispersed case using this database saw a 40 percent reduction from the worst-case scenario in previously released data for Ares I.

Hanke, Jeremy L.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Constellation Program Lessons Learned in the Quantification and Use of Aerodynamic Uncertainty

The NASA Constellation Program has worked for the past five years to develop a re- placement for the current Space Transportation System. Of the elements that form the Constellation Program, only two require databases that define aerodynamic environments and their respective uncertainty: the Ares launch vehicles and the Orion crew and launch abort vehicles. Teams were established within the Ares and Orion projects to provide repre- sentative aerodynamic models including both baseline values and quantified uncertainties. A technical team was also formed within the Constellation Program to facilitate integra- tion among the project elements. This paper is a summary of the collective experience of the three teams working with the quantification and use of uncertainty in aerodynamic environments: the Ares and Orion project teams as well as the Constellation integration team. Not all of the lessons learned discussed in this paper could be applied during the course of the program, but they are included in the hope of benefiting future projects.

Walker, Eric L.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Overview of Experimental Investigations for Ares I Launch Vehicle Development

Another concern for the vehicle during its design trajectory was the separation of the first stage solid rocket booster from the upper stage component after it had depleted its solid fuel propellant. There has been some concern about the interstage of the first stage from clearing the nozzle of the J2-X engine. A detailed separation aerodynamic wind tunnel investigation was conducted in the AEDC VKF Tunnel A to help to investigate the interaction aerodynamic effects5. A comparison of the separation plane details between the Ares I architecture and the Ares I-X demonstration flight architecture is shown in figure 12. The Ares I design requires a more complex separation sequence and requires better control in order to avoid contact with the nozzle of the upper stage engine. The interstage, which houses the J2-X engine for the Ares I vehicle, must be able to separate cleanly to avoid contact of the J2-X engine. There is only about approximately 18 inches of buffer inside the interstage on each size of the nozzle so this is a challenging controlled separation event. This complex experimental investigation required two separate Ares I models (upper stage and first stage with interstage attached) with independent strain gauge balances installed in each model. It also required the Captive Trajectory System (CTS) that was needed to precisely locate the components in space relative to each other to fill out the planned test matrix. The model setup in the AEDC VKF Tunnel A is shown in figure 13. The CTS remotely positioned the first stage at the required x, y, and z positions and was able to provide interactions within 0.2" of the upper stage. A sample of the axial force on the first stage booster is shown in figure 14. These results, as a function of separation distance between the two stages, are compared to pre-test CFD results. Since this is a very challenging, highly unsteady flow field for CFD to correctly model, the experimental results have been utilized by GN&C discipline to more accurately represent the interaction aerodynamics. In addition to the integrated forces and moments obtained from the test, flow visualization data was obtained from this test in the form of Schlieren photographs, as shown in figure 15, which show the shock structure and interaction effects after the two stages separate during flight. This separation test was crucial in the successful flight test of the Ares I-X vehicle and provided the GN&C discipline with the unpowered proximity aerodynamic effect for a separation of the Ares I vehicle.

Tomek, William G.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Aerodynamic Analyses and Database Development for Lift-Off/Transition and First Stage Ascent of the Ares I A106 Vehicle

NASA Langley Research Center, in partnership with NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA Ames Research Center, was involved in the aerodynamic analyses, testing, and database development for the Ares I A106 crew launch vehicle in support of the Ares Design and Analysis Cycle. This paper discusses the development of lift-off/transition and ascent databases. The lift-off/transition database was developed using data from tests on a 1.75% scale model of the A106 configuration in the NASA Langley 14x22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel. The power-off ascent database was developed using test data on a 1% A106 scale model from two different facilities, the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel and the NASA Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. The ascent database was adjusted for differences in wind tunnel and flight Reynolds numbers using USM3D CFD code. The aerodynamic jet interaction effects due to first stage roll control system were modeled using USM3D and OVERFLOW CFD codes.

Pamadi, Bandu N.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ares I Aerodynamic Testing at the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel

Throughout three full design analysis cycles, the Ares I project within the Constellation program has consistently relied on the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel (PSWT) for aerodynamic testing of the subsonic, transonic and supersonic portions of the atmospheric flight envelope (Mach=0.5 to 4.5). Each design cycle required the development of aerodynamic databases for the 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) forces and moments, as well as distributed line-loads databases covering the full range of Mach number, total angle-of-attack, and aerodynamic roll angle. The high fidelity data collected in this facility has been consistent with the data collected in NASA Langley s Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) at the overlapping condition ofMach=1.6. Much insight into the aerodynamic behavior of the launch vehicle during all phases of flight was gained through wind tunnel testing. Important knowledge pertaining to slender launch vehicle aerodynamics in particular was accumulated. In conducting these wind tunnel tests and developing experimental aerodynamic databases, some challenges were encountered and are reported as lessons learned in this paper for the benefit of future crew launch vehicle aerodynamic developments.

Pinier, Jeremy T.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Detailed Uncertainty Analysis for Ares I Ascent Aerodynamics Wind Tunnel Database

A detailed uncertainty analysis for the Ares I ascent aero 6-DOF wind tunnel database is described. While the database itself is determined using only the test results for the latest configuration, the data used for the uncertainty analysis comes from four tests on two different configurations at the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel in St. Louis and the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center. Four major error sources are considered: (1) systematic errors from the balance calibration curve fits and model + balance installation, (2) run-to-run repeatability, (3) boundary-layer transition fixing, and (4) tunnel-to-tunnel reproducibility.

Hemsch, Michael J.↗