Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-entry Test Vehicle Configuration Selection and Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Space Engineering

Part of the book series: Springer Optimization and Its Applications ((SOIA,volume 114))

Abstract

A small and low-cost re-entry vehicle can be a good means for doing hypersonic research, testing new heat-resistant materials, and qualifying newly developed subsystems in a realistic environment. To establish the optimal vehicle shape a response-surface methodology using design-of-experiments techniques is proposed. With these techniques the effects of changing several geometric design parameters in an ‘all-at-the-same-time’ approach can be studied, instead of the more traditional ‘one-at-a-time’ approach. Each of the design iterations includes an aerodynamic analysis based on the Modified Newtonian method and a three-degrees-of-freedom trajectory analysis. Generating response surfaces for each of the performance indices and optimising them with a multi-objective optimisation method, a set of geometric parameters is found that gives the best alternative for each of the performance indices. Two fundamentally different vehicle shapes are considered, i.e., one based on a trapezoidal cross section and a sharp, water-cooled nose, for an increased lift-to-drag ratio, and one being a blunted bi-cone that is simple to manufacture, has good stability properties and good potentials for various aerodynamic and material experiments. The developed methodology leads to significant insight in the design space and provides sub-optimal vehicle shapes at a limited computational cost. It may serve as a good starting point for more detailed analysis of a sub-region of the original design space.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In fact, this could apply to the design of any complex (sub-)system and could be extended to detailed design as well.

  2. 2.

    Variation of k parameters with two (three) possible values, also called levels, results in a total of 2k (3k) combinations.

  3. 3.

    A rotatable design is the most effective from a variance point-of-view, and all points at the same radial distance from the center point have the same magnitude of prediction error (uniformity of variance).

  4. 4.

    To test the characteristics of a flap in the hypersonic flow, the Mach number should be larger than 5 at an altitude of about 60 km (typical re-entry trajectory).

  5. 5.

    The flight-dynamics model has been developed for a rotating, flattened Earth; the atmosphere model is the United States Standard Atmosphere (1976), and the gravitational model is a central field model with a correction for the Earth’s flattening.

  6. 6.

    The VS-40 has been successfully used to launch SHEFEX-2, a DLR-operated re-entry vehicle for hypersonic flight experiments [29].

  7. 7.

    We have assumed that each vehicle can be trimmed throughout the flight. Verification of this has shown that by shifting the centre of mass more or less in Z-direction (vertical) this can indeed be achieved. At the moment we do not focus on optimizing the centre-of-mass location, and because the flap contribution to the aerodynamics is in the same range for each configuration, we have ignored this.

  8. 8.

    The algorithm used is one of the local-search methods implemented in the Matlab®;  Optimization Toolbox.

  9. 9.

    This module is also known as DART, which stands for Delft Aerospace Re-entry Test Vehicle [3].

  10. 10.

    The remaining initial conditions (longitude τ, latitude δ, and heading χ) at the atmospheric interface are (arbitrarily) defined to be: τ = δ = 0∘, and χ = 90∘ to define an equatorial re-entry.

References

  1. Bertin, J.J.: Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics. AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, D.C. (1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B.: On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 13, 1–38 (1951)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Buursink, J., van Baten, T.J., Mooij, E., Sudmeijer, K.J.: DART: the Delft aerospace re-entry test vehicle. IAF-00-V.4.07. In: 51st International Astronautical Congress, Rio de Janeiro, 2–6 October 2000

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dirkx, D., Mooij, E.: Optimization of entry-vehicle shapes during conceptual design. Acta Astronaut. 94, 198–214 (2014) (online 2013). doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fowlkes, W.Y., Creveling, C.M.: Engineering Methods for Robust Product Design: Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Khuri, A.I., Cornell, J.A.: Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses. Statistics: Textbooks and Monographs, vol. 81. Dekker, New York (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Krasnov, N.F.: Aerodynamics of Bodies of Revolution. American Elsevier, New York (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Montgomery, D.C.: Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mooij, E.: Heat-flux tracking for thermal-protection system testing. AIAA-2014-4141. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, San Diego, 4–7 August 2014

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mooij, E., Marée, A.G.M., Sudmeijer, K.J.: Aerodynamic controllability of a selected re-entry test vehicle. IAF-95-V.4.04. In: 46th International Astronautical Congress, Oslo, October 2–6 1995

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mooij, E., Kremer, F.J.G., Sudmeijer, K.J.: Aerodynamic design of a low-cost re-entry test vehicle using a Taguchi approach. AIAA-1999-4831. In: AIAA 9th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Norfolk, VA, November 1–4 1999

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mooij, E., Kremer, F.J.G., Sudmeijer, K.J.: Mission analysis of a low-cost re-entry test vehicle. AIAA-99-4935. AIAA 9th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Norfolk, VA, November 1–4, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  13. Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C.: Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, New York (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Nash, S.G.: Newton-Type Minimization via the Lanczos method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 21, 770–788 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Osizik, M.N.: Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ottens, H.B.A.: Preliminary computational investigation on aerodynamic phenomena on Delft aerospace re-entry test vehicle (DART). In: 4th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, Capua (2001). Published in: ESA SP-487, 2002, pp. 207–213

    Google Scholar 

  17. Phadke, M.S.: Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ridolfi, G., Mooij, E., Corpino, S.: Complex-systems design methodology for systems-engineering collaborative environment. In: Systems Engineering. Theory and Applications. InTech, Rijeka (2012). ISBN 979-953-307-410-7

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ridolfi, G., Mooij, E., Dirkx, D., Corpino, S.: Robust multi-disciplinary optimization of unmanned entry capsules. AIAA-2012-5006. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Minneapolis (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rufolo, G., Pereira, C., Camarri, F.: ESA intermediate experimental vehicle in-flight experimentation. objectives, experiment, implementation, qualification and integration. IAC-14.D2.6.3. In: 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sagliano, M., Samaan, M., Theil, S., Mooij, E.: SHEFEX-3 optimal feedback entry guidance. AIAA-2014-4208. In: AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference and Exposition, San Diego (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Simeonides, G.: Experimental and computational investigation of hypersonic flow about compression ramps. J. Fluid Mech. 283, 17–42 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Simeonides, G.: Simple theoretical and semi-empirical convective heat transfer predictions for generic aerodynamic surfaces. YPA/1576/GS, ESA/ESTEC (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stanley, D.O., Unal, R. Joyner, C.R.: Application of Taguchi methods to propulsion system optimisation for SSTO vehicles. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 29 (4), 453–459 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stanley, D.O., Engelund, W.C., Guinta, A.A., Unal, R.: Rocket-powered single-stage vehicle configuration selection and design. AIAA-1993–1053. In: AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace Design Conference, Irvine, CA, 16–19 February 1993

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sudmeijer, K.J., Mooij, E.: Shape Optimisation for a small experimental re-entry module. AIAA-2002-5261. In: AIAA/AAAF 11th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Orleans (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Taguchi, G.: System of Experimental Design. Engineering Methods to Optimise Quality and Minimise Costs, vol. 1, 2nd edn. UNIPUB/Kraus International Publications, White Plains, NY (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Walker, S., Sherk, J., Shell, D., Schena, R., Bergmann, J., Gladbach, J.: The DARPA/AF Falcon program: the hypersonic technology vehicle #2 (HTV-2) flight demonstration phase. AIAA-2008-2539. In: 15th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Dayton, OH, April 29–May 1 2008

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weihs, H., Turner, J., Hörschgen-Eggers, M.: SHEFEX II – the next step within flight testing of re-entry technology. IAC-06-D2.5.03. In: 57th International Astronautical Congress, Valencia, 2–6 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yonemoto, K., Inatani, Y.: Analytical interpretation on lateral/directional stability and controllability of high angle-of-attack reentry flight. Report No. 630. The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Tokyo (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zoby, E.V., Moss, J.N., Sutton, K.: Approximate convective-heating equations for hypersonic flow. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 18 (1), 64–70 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The past and present cooperation and many fruitful discussions with Kees Sudmeijer and Frans Kremer is gratefully acknowledged. Without them the outcome would probably have been different, and for sure far less enjoyable. Thank you!

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 5058, 2600 GB, Delft, The Netherlands

    Erwin Mooij

Authors
  1. Erwin Mooij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erwin Mooij .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Exploration and Science Thales Alenia Space, Turin, Italy

    Giorgio Fasano

  2. PCS Inc., Halifax, NS, Canada

    János D. Pintér

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mooij, E. (2016). Re-entry Test Vehicle Configuration Selection and Analysis. In: Fasano, G., Pintér, J.D. (eds) Space Engineering. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol 114. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41508-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation