Orbiter Return-To-Flight Entry Aeroheating

The Columbia accident on February 1, 2003 began an unprecedented level of effort within the hypersonic aerothermodynamic community to support the Space Shuttle Program. During the approximately six month time frame of the primary Columbia Accident Investigation Board activity, many technical disciplines were involved in a concerted effort to reconstruct the last moments of the Columbia and her crew, and understand the critical events that led to that loss. Significant contributions to the CAIB activity were made by the hypersonic aerothermodynamic community(REF CAIB) in understanding the re-entry environments that led to the propagation of an ascent foam induced wing leading edge damage to a subsequent breech of the wing spar of Columbia, and the subsequent breakup of the vehicle. A core of the NASA hypersonic aerothermodynamics team that was involved in the CAIB investigation has been combined with the United Space Alliance and Boeing Orbiter engineering team in order to position the Space Shuttle Program with a process to perform in-flight Thermal Protection System damage assessments. This damage assessment process is now part of the baselined plan for Shuttle support, and is a direct out-growth of the Columbia accident and NASAs response. Multiple re-entry aeroheating tools are involved in this damage assessment process, many of which have been developed during the Return To Flight activity. In addition, because these aeroheating tools are part of an overall damage assessment process that also involves the thermal and stress analyses community, in addition to a much broader mission support team, an integrated process for performing the damage assessment activities has been developed by the Space Shuttle Program and the Orbiter engineering community. Several subsets of activity in the Orbiter aeroheating communities support to the Return To Flight effort have been described in previous publications (CFD?, Cavity Heating? Any BLT? Grid Generation?). This work will provide a description of the integrated process utilized to perform Orbiter tile damage assessment, and in particular will seek to provide a description of the integrated aeroheating tools utilized to perform these assessments. Individual aeroheating tools will be described which provide the nominal re-entry heating environment characterization for the Orbiter, the heating environments for tile damage, heating effects due to exposed Thermal Protection System substrates, the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for the description of tile cavity heating, and boundary layer transition prediction. This paper is meant to provide an overall view of the integrated aeroheating assessment process for tile damage assessment as one of a sequence of papers on the development of the boundary layer transition prediction capability in support of Space Shuttle Return To Flight efforts.

[1]  G. Candler,et al.  Data-Parallel Line Relaxation Method for the Navier -Stokes Equations , 1998 .

[2]  M. Hahn,et al.  Experimental investigation of separated flow over a cavity at hypersonic speed. , 1969 .

[3]  Robert D. Habbit,et al.  3D scannerless LADAR for Orbiter inspection , 2006, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[4]  Steven V. DelPapa Arc Jet Screening Tests Of Phase 1 Orbiter Tile Repair Materials and Uncoated RSI High Temperature Emittance Measurements , 2005 .

[5]  Roger A. Lepsch,et al.  Multidisciplinary Analysis of a Lifting Body Launch Vehicle , 2002 .

[6]  G. M. Buck,et al.  Surface temperature/heat transfer measurement using a quantitative phosphor thermography system , 1991 .

[7]  Gregory M. Buck,et al.  Automated thermal mapping techniques using chromatic image analysis , 1989 .

[8]  Scott A. Berry,et al.  X-38 Experimental Aerothermodynamics , 2004 .

[9]  R. Nowak,et al.  Fluorescence Imaging Study of Transition in Underexpanded Free Jets , 2005, ICIASF 2005 RecordInternational Congress onInstrumentation in AerospaceSimulation Facilities.

[10]  Christopher E. Glass,et al.  Fluorescence Imaging of Underexpanded Jets and Comparison with CFD , 2006 .

[11]  William A. Wood,et al.  Computational Aerothermodynamic Assessment of Space Shuttle Orbiter Tile Damage: Open Cavities , 2005 .

[12]  Scott A. Berry,et al.  Shuttle Orbiter Experimental Boundary-Layer Transition Results with Isolated Roughness , 1998 .

[13]  P. F. Holloway,et al.  An investigation of heat transfer within regions of separated flow at a Mach number of 6.0 , 1965 .

[14]  Scott A. Berry,et al.  X-33 Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition , 1999 .

[15]  Kathryn E. Wurster,et al.  Engineering Aerothermal Analysis for X-34 Thermal Protection System Design , 1999 .

[16]  Karen T. Berger,et al.  Shuttle Damage/Repair from the Perspective of Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition - Experimental Results , 2006 .

[17]  D. E. Nestler,et al.  Heat transfer to steps and cavities in hypersonic turbulent flow. , 1969 .

[18]  H. K. Larson,et al.  Heat Transfer in Separated Flows , 1959 .

[19]  Francis A. Greene,et al.  Development of a Boundary Layer Property Interpolation Tool in Support of Orbiter Return To Flight , 2006 .

[20]  Howard K. Larson,et al.  Transition Reynolds Numbers of Separated Flows at Supersonic Speeds , 1960 .

[21]  Michael Holden,et al.  Risk Mitigation Study for Instrumentation Layout Along Wing Leading Edge of 1.8% Scale Space Shuttle Model Using TSP , 2005 .

[22]  Ryan D. McDaniel,et al.  Development of a Flexible Framework for Hypersonic Navier-Stoke Space Shuttle Orbiter Meshes , 2004 .

[23]  Deborah A. Levin,et al.  Numerical simulation of a MicroFlow in an expanding channel , 2006 .

[24]  Scott A. Berry,et al.  Review of Orbiter Flight Boundary Layer Transition Data , 2006 .