Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:23:45.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding of flow features over a typical crew module at Mach 4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. L. N. Desikan,
M. M. Patil and
S. Subramanian
M. M. Patil
Affiliation:
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research Organization, Thiruvananthapuram, India
S. Subramanian
Affiliation:
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research Organization, Thiruvananthapuram, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper presents the numerical simulations of flowfield over a typical Crew Module at Mach 4 for different angles-of-attack ranging from 0 to –25°. Detailed flow features such as contour of density gradient over the model, numerical oil flow and near wake vortex structures are captured very well in the present simulations. The location of the sonic line and its behaviour due to angles-of-attack is also captured in the simulations. The CP distribution on the windward and leeward side shows excellent match with the experimental results. Also, the prediction of aerodynamic coefficients shows very good agreement with the experimental results. The numerical simulation predicts CMcg, CN and CA within 8%, 4% and 3·5% respectively with respect to experimental values.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1216 , June 2015, pp. 727 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

References

1.Fujimoto, K. and Fujii, K.Computational aerodynamic analysis of capsule confgurations toward the development of reusable rockets, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2006, 43, (1), pp 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Schneider, S.P.Laminar-turbulent transition on reentry capsules and planetary probes, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2006, 43, (6), pp 115–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Viviani, A. and Pezzella, G.Computational flowfield analysis over a blunt-body reentry vehicle, J of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2010, 47, (2), pp 258–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Sharma, M., Swantek, A.B., Flaherty, W., Austin, J.M., Doraiswamy, S. and Candler, G.V.Experimental and numerical investigation of hypervelocity carbon dioxide flow over blunt bodies, J Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 2010, 24, (4), pp 673–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Metha, R.C. Aerodynamic drag coefficient for various reentry confgurations at high speed, AIAA-2006-3173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Johnson, J.E, Starkey, R.P. and Lewis, M.J.Aerodynamic stability of reentry heat shield shapes for a crew exploration vehicle, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2006, 43, (4), pp 721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Murphy, K.J., Bibb, K.L., Brauckmann, G.J., Rhode, M.N., Owens, B., Chan, D.T., Walker, E.L., Bell, J.H. and Wilson, T.M. Orion Crew Module aerodynamic testing, AIAA-2011-3502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Bell, J.H. Transonic/supersonic wind tunnel testing of the NASA Orion Command Module, AIAA-2007-1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Campbell, C.C. and Yechout, T.R. Experimental evaluation of NASA Orion aerodynamic and stability characteristics, AIAA-2008-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Allegre, J., Raffin, M., Lengrand, J.C. and Chpoun, A.Aerodynamic forces and moments for a re-entry module, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 1997, 34, (2), pp 182–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Mitvheltree, R.A., Wilmoth, R.G., Cheatwood, F.M., Brauckmann, G.J. and Greene, F.A. Aerodynamics of Stardust sample return capsule, AIAA-97-2304.Google Scholar
12.Bibb, K.L., Walker, E.L., Brauckmann, G.J. and Robinson, P.E. Development of the Orion crew module static aerodynamic database, Part I: Hypersonic, AIAA-2011-3506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Zong, J., Ozawa, T. and Levin, A.Comparison of high-altitude hypersonic wake flows of slender and blunt bodies, AIAA J, 2008, 48, (1), pp 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Bibb, K.L., Walker, E.L., Brauckmann, G.J. and Robinson, P.E. Development of the Orion crew module static aerodynamic database, Part I: Hypersonic, AIAA-2011-3507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Schwing, A.M. and Candler, G.V. Validation of DES for capsule aerodynamics using 05-CA wind tunnel test data, AIAA-2013-0644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Liever, P.A., Habchi, S.D.Burnell, S.I. and Lingard, J.S.Computational fluid dynamics prediction of the Beagle 2 aerodynamic database, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2003, 40, (5), pp 632–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Lin, T.C., Sproul, L.K., Kim, M., Olmos, M. and Feiz, H. Hypersonic reentry vehicle wake flow fields at angles of attack, AIAA-2006-582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Maclean, M., Mundy, E., Wadhams, T., Holden, M., Barnhardt, M. and Candler, G. Experimental and numerical study of laminar and turbulent base flow on a spherical capsule, AIAA-2009-783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Kawai, S. and Fujii, K. Computational analysis of the characteristics of subsonic, transonic and supersonic base flows, AIAA-2005-5156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Viviani, A., Pezzella, G. and Cinquegrana, D. Aerothermodynamics analysis of an Apollo-like reentry vehicle, AIAA-2006-8052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Ganesan, V.R., Balasubramanian, P. and Prasath, M. Aero coefficients of Crew Module (CM) through wind tunnel tests in 1·2m wind tunnel, VSSC/ADD/TM-HSP/022/2010.Google Scholar
22.Ganesan, V.R. and Balasubramanian, P. Crew module CP distribution obtained through wind tunnel tests in 1·2m wind tunnel, VSSC/ADD/TM-HSP/032/2011.Google Scholar
23.Lamp, J.P. and Oberkampf, W.L.Review and development of base pressure and base heating correlation in supersonic flow, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 1995, 32, (1), pp 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar