Shock Waves pp 203-208 | Cite as

Force and moment measurements on the HOPPER configuration for high enthalpy conditions

  • C. Glößner
  • H. Olivier
Conference paper


TH2-D is a high enthalpy hypersonic wind tunnel, for this test campaign driven by an upstream detonation driver [1]. An oxyhydrogen detonation in the high pressure section generates a shock wave in the low pressure section, compressing and heating the synthetic air used as test gas. Varying the filling pressures in both sections and/or diluting the stoichiometric oxyhydrogen with different percentages of helium or argon yields different test conditions. Table 1 shows the test conditions employed corresponding to two points of the HOPPER re-entry trajectory [2]. Figure 1 illustrates reservoir and pitot pressure (p0, pt2) as well as the stagnation point heat flux \( \dot q_{t2} \), as a measure for the stagnation enthalpy. The nozzle flow is protected from water vapour contamination after the testing time by a fast acting center plug valve. The conical nozzle with a half apex angle of 5.8° is followed by the test section with a usable length of about 400 mm and a core flow diameter of 400 mm.
Table 1.

Conditions for the aerothermodynamic testing of the HOPPER-configuration

Fig. 1.

Stagnation point heat flux and reservoir and pitot pressure for conds. D-III and D-IV


Pitching Moment Shock Tunnel Pitot Pressure Stagnation Enthalpy Pitching Moment Coefficient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Habermann, H. Olivier, H. Gronig: ‘Operation of a High Performance Detonation Driver in Upstream Propagation Mode for a Hypersonic Shock Tunnel’. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Int. Symposium on Shock Waves, Imperial College, London 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 447–452Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Spies: ‘RLV HOPPER: Consolidated System Concept’. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Int. Astronautical Congress/The World Space Congress, Houston/Tex. 10–19 Oct 2002, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Jessen, H. Grönig: ‘Six-Component Force Measurements in the Aachen Shock Tunnel’. In: Shock Waves @ Marseille, ed. by R. Brun, L. Dumitrescu (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 1995) pp. 288–292Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Störkmann, H. Olivier, H. Gronig: Force measurements in hypersonic impulse facilities. AIAA Journal 36(3), 342 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Glößner, H. Olivier: ‘Aerothermodynamics of a Winged Reentry Vehicle in Hypersonic Flow’. In: Proceedings of 4th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, Capua/Italy 15–18 October 2001, pp. 233–240, (ESA Publications Division, ESA SP487)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.D. Anderson: Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics. (McGraw-Hill 1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Behr/Astrium Space Company: Preliminary aerodynamic database & CFD-calculations for the HOPPER configuration, private communications 2002/2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B.J. Griffith, J.R. Maus, B.M. Majors, J.T. Best: Addressing the hypersonic simulation problem. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 24(4), (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Glößner
    • 1
  • H. Olivier
    • 1
  1. 1.Shock Wave LabRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations