A R D N MC DESIGN OF T E S A E S U T E ORBITER EO Y A I H P C H TL by W. E. Bornemann T.E.

Surber Manager, Space Shuttle Aerodynamics Supervisor, Orbiter Aerodyanmics Rockwell International Corporation and Rockwell International Corporation Space Systems Group Space Systems Group 12214 Lakewood Boulevard 12214 Lakewood Boulevard Downey, CA 90241 Downey, CA 90241

The Space Shuttle Vehicle i s being developed by the N S to provide capability for lower cost space AA operations i n the 1980's and beyond. This paper describes Shuttle Orbiter aerodynamic design conducted by Rockwell International under contract to N S . Aerodynamic criteria key to establishing the external AA configuration are discussed together with evolution of the design including effects of wing-body blending on high angle of attack aerodynamics.
An overview of the wind tunnel program i s given and aerodynamic characteristics of the final configuration are described. Aerodynamic parameters critical to definition of Orbiter entry control and performance are identified. During entry, the Orbiter f l i e s over an angle of attack range from 50 to zero degrees. Trim capability and stability and control characteristics are discussed a t critical regions in the entry trajectory. Methods are described to define reaction control rocket effectiveness and aerodynamic interactions during the initial portion of entry. A t hypersonic speeds, wind tunnel results of viscous interaction effects a t high angles of attack are discussed. In the supersonic region where transition from high to low angle of attack occurs, critical stability and control parameters and wind tunnel results are described. A t subsonic speeds, comparisons are shown between predicted aerodynamic characteristics and data from the approach and landing flight t e s t program.

NOMENCLATURE

Acronyms
AEDC ALT ARC ATP CDR EAFB ET ETR FCF FMO F JSC KC S LR aC OS M OV PDR PRR RS C SB R SM SE TAEM W R

Symbols (continued) Yawing moment coefficient per degree rudder deflection Factor of proportionality in 1inear viscosity-temperature relation, equation Center of gravity Altitude Lift-to-drag ratio Mach number Mean aerodynamic chord, a1 so c R S jet'mass flow ratio, equation (4) C
mm

Arnold Engineering Development Center Approach and Landing Test N S Ames Research Center AA Authority to Proceed Critical Design Review Edwards Air Force Base External Tank Eastern Test Range First Captive Flight First Manned Orbital Flight N S Johnson Space Center AA N S Kennedy Space Center AA N S Langl ey Research Center (a1so LRC) AA Orbital Maneuvering System Orbital Vehicle Prel iminary Design Review Program Requirements Review Reaction Control System Sol id Rocket Booster Space Shuttle Main Engine Terminal Area Energy Management Western Test Range

-q RE

S Se VD

VA

Symbols Span Axial force coefficient Drag force coefficient Lift coefficient Rolling moment coefficient Rolling moment coefficient due to sidesl ip (per degree) Rolling moment coefficient per degree aileron deflection Roll ing moment coefficient per degree rudder deflection Pitching moment coefficient Normal force coefficient Yawing moment coefficient Yawing moment coefficient due to sidesl ip Yawing moment coefficient per degree aileron deflection

2 Dynamic pressure = 1/2pV Reynolds number, also Re Reference area Standard error of estimate Design touchdown speed Viscous parameter, equation (2) Viscous interaction parameter, equation (1 ) Angle of attack Angle of sidesl ip (positive nose-up) aileron deflection (positive for positive roll ing moment) Body flap deflection (positive for nosedown pitching moment) Elevator deflection (positive for nosel e f t yawing moment) Standard deviation R S j e t momentum ratio, equation (3) C Sweep angle Taper ratio Mass,density of a i r

Subscripts
LB
03

Body 1ength Frees tream

I T O U TO NR D CI N The Space Shuttle Vehicle i s being developed by the N S to provide capability for lower cost space AA operations in the 1980's and beyond. The flight vehicle consists of a reusable orbiter, an expendable external propellant tank, and two reusable solid rocket boosters. Space Shuttle will be capable of launching a variety of payloads into earth-orbit from either the Eastern Test Range (ETR) a t Kennedy Space Center or the Western Test Range (WTR) a t Vandenberg Air Force Base. Maximum payload capabilities will be 29,480 kg for an easterly launch from ETR and 14,515 kg for launch into polar orbit from WTR. The orbiter development contract, under the direction of NASA's Johnson Space Center, was awarded to Rockwell International in August 1972. Under this contract, two orbiter vehicles are being built-0V101 was delivered to the flight t e s t center in February 1977, and approach and landing flight testing completed i n October 1977. OV102, the f i r s t orbital flight vehicle, i s in assembly and i s scheduled for roll-out in l a t e 1978. Orbital flight testing will begin in 1979. Aerodynamic considerations have played a significant role in the vehicle design process. The Shuttle must fly satisfactorily with predicted aerodynamic characteristics; i t i s not feasible to approach f l ight testing by incremental expansion of the altitude and velocity envelope. Consequently, the N S and AA Rockwell have given careful attention to the development of an extensive data base derived largely from wind tunnel t e s t s , with detailed attention being given to defining uncertainties through statistical analysis of wind tunnel data and by comparisons of wind tunnel predictions with flight data from previous programs. In addition, the flight control system i s being designed to minimize i t s sensitivity to uncertainties i n aerodynamic parameters. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) briefly describe the Shuttle mission in order to identify key aerodynamic design criteria ; (2) summarize aerodynamic development of the orbiter; (3) describe the key aerodynamic parameters and their relationship to design and performance of the entry flight system; and (4) sumnarize recent flight results which verify the aerodynamic estimates for the approach and landing phase of the Shuttle mission.

VEHICLEIMISSION DESCRIPTION The Shuttle Vehicle consists of four major elements: the orbiter; main engines (SSME); external tank (ET); and two solid rocket boosters (SRB). Overall vehicle configuration i s illustrated in Figure 1. The external tank contains the liquid oxygenlliquid hydrogen propellants used by the main engi?es during ascent. Liquid oxygen i s located in the forward tank to maintain an acceptable center of gravlty for the combined vehicle. Nozzles on each booster are gimballed to augment control during ascent. The orbiter, Figure 2, i s a double-delta wing configuration comparable in size to a modern transport aircraft. Normally , the orbiter carries a crew of four-commander, pi l o t , mission special i s t , and payload specialist-with provision for as many as seven persons. The orbiter can remain in orbit nominally for seven days (up to 30 with special payloads), return to earth with personnel and payload, land like an airplane, and be refurbished for a subsequent flight in 14 days. Three main rocket engines mounted in the a f t section of the orbiter provide propulsive thrust during ascent. These two million Newton thrust 1iquid oxygen11 iquid hydrogen engines are gimbal led in pitch and yaw to provide thrust vector control. Smaller orbital maneuvering system (OMS) rocket engines are also located in the a f t section to provide final impulse for orbit insertion, orbital maneuvers, and deorbit. Reaction control rockets (RCS) are located in both the forward and a f t section of the orbiter to provide attitude control and three-axis translation during orbit insertion and on-orbit operations. The a f t reaction control rockets are used in combination with aerodynamic surfaces for control during entry. Aerodynamic surface controls include s p l i t elevons along the wing trailing edge; a s p l i t rudder in the vertical fin which can also be flared open to serve as a speed brake during descent; and a hinged body flap located a t the lower a f t end of the fuselage to augment control during descent and landing approach. The body flap also shields the exposed main engine nozzles from aerodynamic heating during entry. The entire external surface of the orbiter, except the windows, i s protected b reusable insulation y to maintain acceptable structural temperatures under entry heating environment. Figure 3 i l l ustrates the application areas for the materials used in the thermal protection subsystem. Application i s as follows: 1. Coated Nomex f e l t i s used in areas where temperatures are less than 67ZK for entry and 716OK for ascent; i .e., upper cargo bay door, mid- and aft-fuselage sides, upper wing, and O S pod. M 2. 3. 4. Low-temperature reusable surface insulation i s used in those areas where temperatures are below 922OK and above 67ZK under design heating conditions. High-temperature reusable surface insulation i s used in those areas exposed to temperatures below 1533OK and above 922OK under design heating conditions. Reinforced carbon-carbon i s used on areas such as wing leading edge and nose cap where predicted temperatures exceed 1533K under design heating conditions.

5. Thermal window panes are used in the crew compartment and high temperature metal i s used for forward reaction control system fairings and elevon upper surface rub seal panels.

6.

Thermal barriers are instal led around operable penetrations (main egress hatch, landing gear doors, etc.) to protect against aerothermal heating.

The thermal protection system i s a passive system. I t has been designed for ease of maintenance and for flexibility of ground and flight operations while satisfying i t s prPmary function of maintaining acceptable airframe outer skin temperatures.

Mission Profile Mission performance capability is sumnarized i n Table 1. A typical mission p r o f i l e is shown i n Figure 4. The Shuttle is launched w i t h t h e main engines and solid rocket boosters burning in parallel. maximum dynamic pressure of 31,100 ~ / m ' is experienced approximately 62 seconds a f t e r launch a t 11,280 meters a l t i t u d e . Booster separation occurs a t 122 seconds a t an a l t i t u d e of 43,280 meters, 46.3 kilometers downrange from t h e launch s i t e . The solid rocket boosters descend on parachutes, a r e recovered a f t e r water impact, and a r e refurbished f o r subsequent reuse.

After booster separation, t h e o r b i t e r continues t o ascend w i t h main engine cut-off and external tank separation occurring 479 seconds a f t e r 1ift-off when t h e o r b i t e r has reached an a l t i t u d e of 115,700 meters. The orbital maneuvering system engines, which provide the additional velocity needed f o r orbital insertion are cut-off approximately 600 seconds a f t e r launch. After completion of the orbital operations phase, deorbit i s accomplished by retro-fire of the orbital maneuvering engines, and t h e o r b i t e r descends to the atmospheric entry interface (nominally, an a l t i t u d e of 121,920 meters). A typical entry trajectory is shown i n Figure 5. The i n i t i a l entry phase extends to a dynamic pressure level of 957.6 N/m2 (approximately 76,200 meters a l t i t u d e ) during which a t t i t u d e control from two a f t pods i s blended w i t h aerodynamic surface controls, the l a t t e r gaining i n effectiveness a s dynamic pressure increases. Entry, from a dynamic pressure level of 957.6 N/m2 to a Mach number of l e s s than f i v e , i s accomplished a t a high angle of attack ( i n i t i a l l y 38 degrees) during which the blanketing e f f e c t of the wing essentially precludes any rudder control Coordinated l a t e r a l directional control i s provided by combined yaw reaction control j e t s and aileron control. The terminal phase occurs a s angle of attack i s reduced below 18 degrees. As the o r b i t e r descends t o a l t i t u d e s where winds can r e s u l t in r e l a t i v e l y large errors in i n e r t i a l l y derived a i r data, probes a r e extended (M=3.5) to provide a i r data r e l a t i v e t o the vehicle. During a typical normal entry, range control is achieved by bank angle while angle of attack follows a predetermined schedule t o achieve ( a t approximately M = 1.5) an angle somewhat smaller than t h a t corresponding to maximum LID. A downrange capability of up t o 7,960 kilometers w i t h a cross range capability of 1,815 kilometers may be realized. Subsonic f l i g h t i s achieved a t an a l t i t u d e of approximately 12,190 meters. Range control during the gliding descent i s obtained by angle of attack modulation with velocity control maintained by the speed brake. The approach and landing interface occurs a t 3,048 meters above ground level and a preflare i s i n i t i a t e d a t an appropriate a l t i t u d e , followed by a deceleration f l o a t and touchdown. The i n i t i a l approach t a r g e t and f l a r e a l t i t u d e will be scheduled t o provide a minimum of 25 seconds between f l a r e i n i t i a t e and touchdown. Touchdown occurs a t an angle of attack of about 15 degrees. The nominal touchdown velocity i s 88 meters/sec, and maximum landing speed w i t h a 14,515-kilogram payload is about 106 meters/sec including dispersions f o r hot-day e f f e c t s and tailwinds.

Orbiter Aerodynamic Criteria Aerodynamic c r i t e r i a , Reference 1 , f o r the o r b i t e r vehicle require the configuration to perform as both a spacecraft and an a i r c r a f t . Because of t h i s , t h e external features must be carefully configured to provide the protection and v e r s a t i l i t y required f o r orbital and atmospheric f l i g h t , and the aerodynamic performance and control necessary f o r unpowered descent and landing. The aerodynamic lines must ensure performance t h a t i s acceptable over the hypersonic to subsonic speed range, and provide the required cross range capabil i t y and touchdown velocity Aerodynamic requirements, Table 2, were developed from analysis of the entry phase of the mission. Landing requirements a r e shown i n Figure 6. S t a t i c s t a b i l i t y was not required since the design c r i t e r i a allowed reliance on the f l i g h t control system t o meet flying q u a l i t i e s c r i t e r i a . Early simulations identified a f l i g h t control requirement f o r s t a t i c longitudinal s t a b i l i t y t o be no more than two percent body length (5.45 percent mean aerodynamic chord) unstable so the pitching moment curve established the a f t center of gravity l i m i t a t 67.5 percent of body length. Payload c r i t e r i a established a center of gravity range of 2.5 percent, thus establishing the forward l i m i t .

The selected configuration, Figure 2 , evolved from a s e r i e s of program and technical refinements directed to achieve the vehicle yielding the best combination of performance and cost. This evolution i s discussed further i n a l a t e r section. The double-delta planform combined with a moderately low fineness r a t i o (approximately f i v e ) body minimizes interference heating - e f f e c t s , provides the required cross range requirements, and possesses an acceptable trim and s t a b i l i t y range, Figure 7, over the f l i g h t Mach number range. The o r b i t e r wing was sized t o provide a 88 meters/second touchdown speed (VD) a t a 15-degree angle of attack ( t a i l scrape a t t i t u d e f o r main gear s t r u t compressed, t i r e f l a t ) with body f l a p retracted and the center of gravity a t the forward limit. The leading edge sweep (45 degrees) and aspect r a t i o (2.265) were selected on the .basis of aerothermodynarnic trade studies t o provide the design touchdown speed f o r a center of gravity a t the forward l i m i t with minimum wing s i z e and t o optimize the wing leading edge thermal protection system f o r a reuse cycle of 100 f l i g h t s prior to major rework. The fuselage was designed t o accomnodate a variety of payloads and house the crew and maneuvering control systems. Nose camber, cross section, and upward sloping forebody J d e s were selected t o improve hypersonic pitch trim and directional s t a b i l i t y and i n conjunction w i t h wind-body blending, t o reduce entry heating on the body sides. Propulsion units f o r entry a t t i t u d e control and orbital maneuvering have been incorporated in pods located in the a f t body fairings. The body f l a p i s used t o protect the Shuttle main engine during entry and t o provide trim capability t o relieve elevon loads. The vertical t a i l has been sized to provide a low-speed Cng of 0.0013 a t an angle of attack of 13 degrees about a center of gravity located a t the a f t limit. I t has a reference area of 38.,39 m2 including the rudderispeed brake. The rudder is s p l i t along the o r b i t e r buttock plane t o provide

directional s t a b i l i t y augmentation i n the hypersonic/supersonic f l i g h t regimes and to apply drag modulation f o r the subsonic f l i g h t phases, approach and landing. The section profile i s a five-degree, halfangle, 60-40 double-wedge a i r f o i l . Aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic c r i t e r i a , Reference 2, regarding surface discontinuities, thermal protection system t i l e steps and gaps, and waviness a r e shown in Figure 8. These c r i t e r i a are based on aerodynamic efficiency requirements of 1i f t i n g surfaces and the prevention of premature transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layers in the high heating portion of entry. Aerodynamic efficiency i s affected t o a much greater extent by surface conditions of the forward rather than a f t regions of components. Hence, tolerance c r i t e r i a are generally more r e s t r i c t i v e f o r forward regions of the vehicle surfaces and somewhat relaxed a t a f t portions.

D V L P E T AP O C E E OM N PR A H Development Schedule Major program milestones a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 9, s t a r t i n g with authority t o proceed (ATP) i n T 1972 and culminating w i t h i n i t i a l operational capability in 1980. The o r b i t e r concept a t A P was a blended delta wing vehicle based on precontract studies and configured t o meet i n i t i a l Shuttle Program requirements. As a r e s u l t of a continuing assessment of system requirements and technical refinements, early in the contract the o r b i t e r concept was modified t o reduce weight and decrease program and operating costs (Reference 3). As discussed in more detail l a t e r , refinements in the aerodynamic configuration led to a double-delta planform incorporating a more e f f i c i e n t l i f t i n g surface than the blended delta. The System Requirements Review i n August 1973 finalized technical requirements f o r the Space Shuttle systems ( i . e . , the t o t a l vehicle, i t s elements, and t h e i r ground systems) and approved the design approach of the vehicle and associated support equipment. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of the f i r s t o r b i t e r (Orbiter 101) vehicle and subsystems f o r the approach and landing f l i g h t t e s t program was completed in February 1974, followed by the Preliminary Design Review of the second o r b i t e r (102) in March 1975. Orbiter 101 roll-out from f i n a l assembly i n Palmdale, California, took place i n September 1976. The vehicle was mated t o the Boeing 747 c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t a t the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and the f i r s t captive f l i g h t was com leted in February 1977. The f i r s t airlaunch of Orbiter 101 f o r the approach took place on August 12, 1977, and the final f l i g h t was completed on and landing f l i g h t t e s t (ALT~ October 26, 1977. Delivery of OVlOl to the Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, f o r ground vibration testing took place i n March 1978. Fabrication and assembly of Orbiter 102, the f i r s t orbital vehicle, began in 1975. Rollout i s scheduled f o r l a t e 1978, followed by delivery to Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and f i r s t manned orbital f l i g h t i n 1979. The f i r s t six orbital f l i g h t s of the Shuttle are development t e s t f l i g h t s , and the seventh f l i g h t i n 1980 i s considered the i n i t i a l operational capability f l i g h t .

Aerodynamic Design Approach I t i s conventional i n an a i r c r a f t program t o approach f l i g h t demonstration by incremental expansion of the f l i g h t envelope. This i s not feasible with the Shuttle vehicle. Once Shuttle i s launched, i t is comnitted t o f l i g h t over the complete mission profile from ascent t o o r b i t e r insertion, deorbit, entry, and landing. Flight characteristics must be based on aerodynamic data derived from ground testing and analysis. Careful attention has been given t o the interactions between f l i g h t control systems design and aerodynamic characteristics, and allowance has been made f o r uncertainties in basic aero data in f l i g h t control design. Predicted aerodynamic characteristics have been derived from extensive wind tunnel t e s t s which have included a systematic investigation of data uncertainties, nonlinear e f f e c t s , and e f f e c t s of wind tunnel instal 1ation, blockage, and shock wave ref1 ections The Langl ey Research Center conducted detailed wind tunnel investigations of control surface characteristics and nonlinear aerodynamic e f f e c t s , (I .e., Reference 4) t o support development of the data base.

Wind Tunnel Program Key t o Space Shuttle development has been the acquisition of wind tunnel t e s t data t o support design and evaluation by providing a continuously maturing data base reflecting configuration and subsystem y updates. B f i r s t orbital f l i g h t in 1979, approximately 40,100 t o t a l wind tunnel t e s t hours will have been conducted f o r aerodynamics, heat transfer, and structural dynamics, consisting of approximately 20,200 f o r the o r b i t e r vehicle, 16,100 f o r the mated launch configuration, and 3,800 for the c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t program, Table 3. A t o t a l of 94 models have been built-38 aerodyamic, 36 heat transfer, and 20 structural dynamic, Table 4. All wind tunnel testing i s coordinated with and approved by N S management a t JSC. AA In order t o accurately simulate f l i g h t conditions in a wind tunnel, Reynolds number and Mach number AA must be matched. Problems in flow simulation (Reference 5, N S CP-2009) occur when the geometric scaling of viscous flow i s important, o r when coupling between the viscous surface'.flow and the external flow f i e l d i s strong. In the f i r s t case, the boundary layer can be considered separately from the inviscid flow f i e l d , and viscous e f f e c t s can be scaled. This holds f o r Mach numbers up t o about 10. I t i s well known, f o r example, t h a t skin f r i c t i o n varies w i t h Reynolds number in a predictable manner and can be scaled to f l i g h t conditions from suitable wind tunnel results. For Mach numbers greater than about 10, a pressure interaction r e s u l t s from the outward streamline deflection induced by a thick boundary layer, and the viscous-inviscid interaction can no longer be neglected. For t h i s case, there a r e two classical simulation parameters comnonly considered:

(1)

ym, the

viscous interaction parameter introduced by Hayes and Probstein (Reference 6)

(2)

TL, t h e

viscous parameter introduced by Whitfield and Griffith (Reference 7)

where M i s the freestream Mach number, C i s the factor of proportionality i n the l i n e a r ; viscosi?y-temperature relation (Reference 8 ) , and Rb.. i s the freestream Reynolds number m based on x. The parameter Y i s the relevant parametgr f o r the "pressure" in both the strong and weak interaction cases; whereas V i s the relevant parameter in terms of ' correlates "pressure coefficient" ( i . e . , xm/qm). For s h t t l e , i t has been observed t h a t total aerodynamic coefficients b e t t e r than Xm, and consequently, has been used as the hypersonic simulation parameter.

vL

Figure 10 shows a comparison between f l i g h t Re and and the simulation capability of typical wind tunnels used to develop the Orbiter aerodynamic data base. I t i s seen t h a t the tunnel capabilities closely match f l ight simulation requirements

v L

Orbiter aerodynamic t e s t hours are summarized in Figure 11 which i l l u s t r a t e s the phasing and relationship to program milestones, and the distribution by speed range. Approximately 38 percent of t h e hours were utilized in subsonic t e s t , 44 percent in the transonitlsupersonic range, and 18 percent in t h e hypersonic testing. Four t e s t phases will be completed by f i r s t orbital f l i g h t . The f i r s t was a configuration definition phase to develop wing a i r f o i l section and planform geometry in support of design trades to reduce o r b i t e r weight which led to selection of the double-delta arrangement. This phase was completed by System Requirements Review in August 1973. The second phase extending essentially to OV102 Prel imi nary Design Review i n March 1975 was dedicated t o refinement of the o r b i t e r vehicle and development of the ferry f l i g h t configuration. A t a i l cone configuration was developed t o improve ferry performance and provide longer duration o r b i t e r f l i g h t s during the approach and landing t e s t program. Orbiter t e s t s were conducted to determine basic s t a b i l i t y and control capability over the complete entry speed range. Control surface effectiveness and hinge moments were measured to support preliminary design and sizing of actuators. I n i t i a l R S interaction t e s t s were conducted t o support entry control analysis. Tests were also performed C to measure Reynolds number and viscous interaction e f f e c t s and to identify wind tunnel s t i n g t a r e corrections to t e s t data. In addition, the Langley Research Center conducted testing t o measure o r b i t e r damping derivatives. The t h i r d phase of the t e s t program was implemented following OV102 Preliminary Design Review in March 1975 t o provide more detailed OV102 design data and to verify the aerodynamic characteristics of OV101 prior t o f i r s t captive f l i g h t in February 1977. The Langley Research Center program t o investigate nonlinear aerodynamic and control surface interaction characteristics was continued during t h i s phase. In addition, extensive testing was conducted t o develop the o r b i t e r a i r data system and provide sensor c a l i brations f o r both OVlOl and 102. OVlOl verification testing was also completed during t h i s period u t i l i z ing a 0.36-scale model i n the Ames Research Center 40x80-ft (12.2x24.4 m) wind tunnel. This model was an accurate replica of the actual OVlOl f l i g h t vehicle and incorporated simulated thermal protection system t i l e s , outer moldline protuberances, and main engine and reaction control system exhaust nozzles. The final phase, i n i t i a t e d in early 1978, i s s t i l l i n progress and i s directed toward verification of OV102 characteristics prior t o f i r s t orbital f l i g h t . T o models a r e employed (0.05 and 0.02 s c a l e ) t o w cover the speed range from Mach 16 t o 0.2. Figure 12, i l l u s t r a t e s the d e t a i l s of protuberances, cavities, and thermal s e a l s simulated on the m d e l s .

Aerodynamic Uncertainties Allowance has been made f o r uncertainties in basic aerodynamic data used i n design of the Shuttle Vehicle, subsystems, and early mission profiles, Reference 9. T o categories of uncertainties have been w defined: 1 ) Tolerances, which account f o r wind tunnel data accuracy and manufacturing tolerances; and 2) Variations, which account f o r unknowns i n extrapolation of model data t o free-flight. "Tolerances" a r e used i n subsystem design, and were derived from a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of wind tunnel data in which t e s t s were conducted using the same models in several different wind tunnels and using different scale models in the same wind tunnel. "Variations" are used in establishing f l i g h t t e s t ppans and constraints, and were determined from comparisons between predicted aerodynamics and f l ight t e s t r e s u l t s from 1i f t i n g entry vehicles and selected high-speed a i r c r a f t . The f l i g h t data will allow reductions of the variations and removal of corresponding f l i g h t placards t o achieve operational capability.

A mu1 t i p l e regression analysis computer program, Reference 10, was used t o determine the "to1erances" on the derivatives CL, CD, Cm versus a; Cn, Ca versus 8, and 6,. Utilization of the program involved inputting available s e t s of wind tunnel data f o r a specified coefficient versus a , B, 6a o r 6, a t given conditions of Mach number, control surface s e t t i n g , e t c . , with a proposed fowh of curve-fit; e.g., CL = KO + Kcc + K2a2 K5a5. The regression program s t a t i s t i c a l l y determines which terms of the proposed

...

curve-fit equation are significant and eliminates those which are not significant by performing a least-square curve-fit of the t e s t data. Subsequent to selecting a "best" curve-fit, the deviation of each t e s t point from the curve i s computed and the Standard Error of estimate, Se, (which i s a measure of the standard deviation, a ) i s multiplied by three to estimate the three-sigma (30) tolerance of the aerodynamic coefficient, C, being analyzed. The three-sigma tolerance i s an increment or band about a nominal value of the aerodynamic coefficient, C, for any given Mach number, body flap deflection, etc., where the probability that a measured coefficient a t the specified condition l i e s within C +3u i s 99.73 percent. An example of the procedure for determining the tolerance on l i f t coefficient i s shown in Figure 13. The regression program yields a polynominal expression for 1i f t coefficient in terms of angle of attack:

The standard error of estimate becomes Se = 0.0146 and the corresponding three-sigma tolerance on l i f t coefficient a t Mach 5.0 becomes 0.0438. "Variations" were developed for three speed regimes from comparisons of f l i g h t and predicted values based on wind tunnel t e s t data for representative vehicles, constructing the bounds of the data poilits and applying the larger bound as a plus or minus value. A example of the procedure used to develop variation n uncertainties i s displayed in Figure 14. The figure presents a comparison between predictions based on wind tunnel results and f l i g h t measured values of normal force for selected aircraft and space vehicles. The data bands were selected on the basis of engineering ~udgmentand weighting "Shuttle-1 i ke" configurations more heavily than the 1ifting bodies. The speed regime groups were M ( 0.8, 0.8 5 M ( 1.2 and M 2 1.2. The ratio of variation to tolerance a t Mach 10.0 was assumed t o apply throughout the viscous interaction speed region. Later in t h i s report where Orbiter flight data from the approach and landing t e s t program are discussed, comparisons are shown between estimated tolerances and variations for several aerodynamic parameters. The measured flight t e s t data points are seen t o be distributed about the nominal value and t o fall within the predicted tolerance band, and well within the estimated variations. I t i s anticipated that further correlation with f l i g h t data will permit reduction of the variations and removal of corresponding f l i g h t placards t o achieve full operational capability.

C NI U A I N E OUI N O FG R TO V L TO Stability, control, and performance requirements for aerodynamic configuration design of the orbiter vehicle are, for the most part, established by the entry and recovery phases of flight. Consequently, i t i s these phases of flight which were key in determining aerodynamic requirements for the orbiter external arrangement. On the other hand, design airload conditions are primarily determined from the ascent phase. Design issues key to achieving the proper aerodynamic balance to provide s t a b i l i t y , control, and center of gravity range capability across the entrylrecovery flight regime are wing design, wing-body integration, and integration of aerodynamic and f l i g h t control requirements. Wing design was key because of i t s influence on vehicle weight, thermal environment, aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y , buffet characteristics, and gliding and landing performance capability. Ning-body integration was important in obtaining a balanced aerodynamic configuration capable of trim and control over the entire speed range, and in minimizing thermal envi ronment due to interference flow effects. Fuselage dimensions were 1argely fixed by payload size and packaging efficiency while aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic considerations establ ished forebody shape and local contours. Integration of aerodynamic control requirements was of major importance in meeting flying qua1 i t y goals in a l l flight regimes, and minimizing vehicle weight as affected by control surf ace arrangement, size, and actuator requirements

Prior to Shuttle Program go-ahead in August 1972, Rockwell International participated in extensive NASA-funded Shuttle System studies during which numerous trades (Reference 1 ) were conducted to determine Shuttle operational cost effectiveness, desired configuration and geometry, major subsystem definition, and identification of major design drivers for the orbiter configuration. Design requirements found to be key configuration drivers are landing speed; payload size, weight, and center of gravity envelope; entry cross range and aerodynamic heating; stability and control requirements; and flyin qualities. From these studies emerged a basepoint configuration a t Shuttle Program authority to proceed TATP). Following ATP, further trade studies were conducted a t NASAIJSC and Rockwell to refine the basepoint design. Essentially four aerodynamic basepoints were evaluated in arriving a t the final selected design, as summarized in Figure 15.

ATP Configuration
For the ATP orbiter aerodynamic configuration, Rockwell selected a blended delta wing-body design t o meet N S mission requirements. Selection of the external arrangement was based on results of previous AA investigations a t the N S centers, and Rockwell design studies, supported by 4300 hours of wind tunnel AA testing. The orbiter aerodynamic shape incorporated a 50-degree swept delta wing planfom sized t o provide 77.2 mlsec design touchdown speed with 18,100 kilograms return payload. Hypersonic L was 1.3 a t I D I D 34-degree angle of attack, and maximum subsonic L was 5.7. Elevons were sized t o provide trim a t hypersonic speeds over an angle of attack range from 20 to 50 degrees with an operational center of gravity range of three percent body length. The cargo bay provided a 4.57 meter diameter by 18.2 meter long volume for a wide variety of payloads. Cargo deploymentlretrieval manipulators were stowed in a dorsal fairing along the top of the payload bay doors. Provision was made for installing four airbreathing engines in the a f t portion of the payload bay for early development flights. Three main propulsion system rocket engines were located a t the base of the a f t fuselage, and on-orbit propulsion engines were installed

in two removable pod modules alongside the a f t fuselage. the a f t pods and in the forward fuselage compartment.

Reaction control rocket engines were located in

PRR

- PDR Configuration

Upon initiation of Shuttle go-ahead, the development aerodynamic wind tunnel program was implemented, and further trade studies were conducted a t NASA/JSC and Rockwell to refine the ATP basepoint. The ATP and PRR orbiters (Figure 15) were both blended delta wing configurations which were externally similar. The most obvious changes were: (1) a redesigned forebody t o accomodate internal packaging revisions; (2) the movement of the O SR S pod from the side of the a f t fuselage to the shoulder location; and (3) deletion MI C of airbreathing propulsion for landing a s s i s t following orbital flights.
A series of wind tunnel t e s t s conducted over the Mach number range from 0.26 to 7.4, indicated revised wing twist, camber, and fuselage blending would improve low-speed 1i f t capability Results showed that reducing the wing-body f i l l e t radius and changing from a faired t o a straight f i l l e t (wing-glove) increased the trim C significantly. In addition, significant system requirement changes were made by N S to reduce vehicke weight and cost. Orbiter down payload weight was reduced from 18,100 to 11,300 AA kilograms, and the vehicle resized from a design dry weight of 77,100 kilograms to 68,000 kilograms. The minimum subsonic s t a b i l i t y requirements were reduced from three percent to 0.5 percent body length s t a t i c margin a t the forward center of gravity. For the PDR configuration, Reference 3, direction was received from N S to modify the wing planform to a double-delta design, and the wing was resized to meet the AA reduced dry weight and payload requirements. A 45/79 degree wing planform with reduced glove leading edge radius was incorporated for improved subsonic performance, Figures 16 and 17. Improved low-speed performance and the reduced s t a t i c margin requirement permitted a reduction in wing size from 299 to 250 square meters and resulted in rebalancing the orbiter vehicle to meet s t a b i l i t y and control requirements.

CDR Configuration

Wind tunnel investigations of the PDR configuration revealed a need for further configuration refinement. Aerodynamic tests showed a difficulty in providing trim capability a t the forward center of gravity in the supersonic f l i g h t regime. Aeroheating tests indicated the blunt fuselage nose resulted in early transitional flow and high temperatures along the lower body surface. Also, wing incidence, camber, and thickness distributions designed for maximum subsonic performance 1ed to local fairings on the 1ower wing and fuselage surfaces which caused high local heating. Changes incorporated in the fuselage nose section are illustrated in Figure 18. The blunt nose shape was modified t o a cross section which was basically parabolic in plan and side-view. Winglfuselage fairings along the bottom of the orbiter were modified to provide a thermodynamically aceptable smooth lower surface with minimum reverse curvature, Figure 19. Leading edge sweep of the glove was slightly changed (from 78 to 81 degrees) as a result of refairing into the modified fuselage nose. T achieve the best combination of performance and cost, further configuration refinements were made. o The down payload requirement was increased to 14,500 kilograms and the design center of gravity range established a t 2.5 percent body length. The O S pod forebody fairing which extended onto the cargo bay M door was shortened to reduce weight and simplify the door-to-fuselage seal design. In addition, the manipulator a m dorsal fairing along the top of the payload bay doors was deleted, and the manipulator was stowed inside the payload bay, Figure 20. Aerodynamic c r i t e r i a for the final configuration are listed previously in Table 2.

ORBITER A R D N MC CHARACTERISTICS EO Y A I Aerodynamics characteristics of the final orbiter vehicle, Reference 2, are sunmarized in this section. These characteristics were derived from wind tunnel t e s t results adjusted to account for scale effects or differences between model configurations and the final orbiter vehicle. Aeroelastic corrections have been estimated by standard methods. Wind tunnel skin friction drag and reaction control rocket plume interaction data have been corrected t o free-flight conditions using Reynolds number scaling for skin friction, and jet-to-freestream-momentum ratio for plume effects. Criteria for aerodynamic design of the Orbiter have been determined from analyses of the entry flight phase, considering requirements for vehicle trim, control , performance, and aerodynamic heating. A typical entry profile i s illustrated in Figure 21. Trajectory guidance i s accomplished by flying an angle of attack/veloci ty profile preselected t o meet thermal design c r i t e r i a , and using roll comnands for range control. Flight control i s accomplished in two modes termined spacecraft and aircraft. The spacecraft mode applies from iinitial through mid-entry phases where the Orbiter i s a t high angle of attack making the vertical fin and rudder ineffective. The aircraft mode includes mid-entry through approach and 1anding. Switching from spacecraft to a i r c r a f t modes i s performed as a function of angle of attack and velocity. Transition begins a t approximately Mach 5 and i s completed a t about Mach 1.5. In the spacecraft mode, control in a l l three axes i s i n i t i a l l y provided by the a f t reaction control system jets mounted a t the base of the Orbiter on either side of the vertical t a i l . A control authority of the aerodynamic surfaces s becomes sufficient, the jets are deactivated. Utilization of the control surfaces and jets during entry i s illustrated in Figure 22. A t a dynamic pressure of 95.8 N/m2, the elevons are used to supplement the jets in pitch and r o l l . The roll jets are turned off a t a dynamic pressure of 478.8 N/m2 a t which point the yaw jets are used to i n i t i a t e roll maneuvers (as well as yaw control) with the ailerons providing turn coordination until switchover t o the aircraft mode. A t a dynamic pressure of 957.6 N/m2, the pitch jets are turned off and the elevons provide pitch control. Transition t o the aircraft mode i s initiated a t approximately Mach 5 when the rudder i s activated. The yaw jets are turned off a t about Mach 1, and the

rudder provides control until landing. The speed brake i s programed t o a s s i s t pitch trim and augment l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y during t r a n s i t i o n from spacecraft t o a i r c r a f t control. During approach and landing, the speed brake s e t t i n g i s modulated f o r speed control. Additional pitch trim i s provided by the body f l a p which i s programed as a function of velocity. Significance of the aerodynamic parameters r e s t s i n t h e i r e f f e c t s on vehicle performance, control, and airloads. Those parameters most sensitive t o meeting entry mission requirements a r e l i s t e d i n Table 5. L i f t , drag, and pitching moment a r e the primary aerodynamic parameters governing the entry trajectory, range capability, and thermal system design requirements in terms of heat r a t e and load. Heating r a t e influences maximum surface temperature and a f f e c t s material reuse capability. Heat load establishes material thickness to maintain structural temperatures and, therefore, a f f e c t s thermal protection system weight. Pitching moment determines the elevon s e t t i n g required f o r trim. Design areas sensitive t o trim s e t t i n g are elevon heating during i n i t i a l entry, and control surface actuator s t a l l limits a t transonic speeds. In addition, there i s an interaction between elevon s e t t i n g and lateral-directional control capability because of the change i n r o l l and yaw effectiveness of the ailerons with elevon position. Lateral-directional trim and control capability i s governed by the aileron and rudder control derivatives. Above Mach 5 the aileron i s used f o r both r o l l and yaw trim before the rudder become effective. Between Mach 5.0 and 1.5, the rudder provides both yaw and r o l l trim w i t h the aileron providing t u r n coordination. Below Mach 1.5, r o l l trim is provided by t h e rudder. The derivatives Cng. Cag9 Cn6a, C R ~ , , CnSr, Cggr are key t o establishing control capability, reaction control system propellant usage, and the-switch-over- point from spacecraft t o a i r c r a f t control modes.

High Altitude Aerodynamics The entry interface, defined as the upper l i m i t of the sensible atmosphere, begins a t approximately 120,000 meters a l t i t u d e . In t h i s high a l t i t u d e region, say 70,000 t o 120,000 meters, rarefied gas flows a r e encountered by the o r b i t e r as i t enters the atmosphere. Aerodynamic design issues i n t h i s region involve determining the effectiveness of the control j e t s and t h e i r influence on t h e Orbiter flow f i e l d , i n addition t o defining viscous interaction e f f e c t s associated with low Reynolds number/high Mach number f 1ows

I n i t i a l entry aerodynamic characteristics, Figure 23, a r e highly influenced by interactions between the reaction control system j e t plumes and the local flow f i e l d over the Orbiter. The t o t a l j e t e f f e c t s a r e comprised of three factors:
r J e t thrust r Surface impingement r Flow f i e l d interaction

Impingement and interaction e f f e c t s a r e inter-related and have been obtained from wind tunnel testing. Coupling i s present between the plume e f f e c t s and aero surfaces, and between the j e t s themselves.
A s e r i e s of model nozzles with d i f f e r e n t expansion r a t i o s were employed during the wind tunnel t e s t AA program. General Dynamics/Convair, under contract t o the N S (NAS9-14095), Reference 11, developed a method whereby the experimentally measured induced plume e f f e c t (surface impingement plus flow f i e l d interaction) could be separated into two component parts and the impingement term extrapolated to f l i g h t conditions. To obtain a correct modeling of the reaction control system plume e f f e c t s i n the wind tunnel, i t was necessary t o observe certain scaling c r i t e r i a . The primary factors for consideration, aside from dimensional scaling, a r e plume shape and jet-to-freestream momentum r a t i o , @j/@m. In some instances, namely, yaw t h r u s t e r f i r i n g s , mass flow r a t e r a t i o , i j / l i m , scaling was found t o be a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r modeling parameter than momentum r a t i o . The scaling parameters a r e defined as:

and

m. @.vm -s= @a - 1 (sin Vj n

where
m = J e t mass flow r a t e
j

13.)"~ = 1.300 x
J

(>)

q m

im Freestream mass flow r a t e =

v

-m = Dynamic pressure - FE/m2 q

9. = Nozzle half-angle a t e x i t

E x i t velocity

- meters/sec

n = Number of thrusters
Sref = Reference area (24.9 m2) In scaling from wind tunnel to flight, certain adjustments to the data base are required to account for real exhaust plume effects since cold a i r was used as the jet media in the tunnel. Model plume impingement effects were theoretically extracted from the measured tunnel data and the remaining j e t plume interaction effects correlated against +, & / j or hj/im. Prototype impingement effects were then theoretically generated. Examples of the data correlation for pitching moment are presented in Figure 24.

, The application of the reaction control system data to a typical entry flight condition of & = 478.8 N/m2 a t an altitude of 79,250 meters are presented in Figure 25 for three a f t l e f t downfiring reaction control system thrusters. I t i s to be noted that adverse effects to control authority result from the impingement and flow interaction terms for roll and pitch; whereas, in yaw these terms tend to increase the jet moment.
Viscous interaction effects gre scaled from wind tunnel t e s t data to flight conditions by means of the hypersonic viscous parameter VA discussed earlier:

where
Mm = Freestream Mach number %"LB
= Freestream Reynolds number (based on body length, LB)
=

CL

Proportionality factor for the linear viscosity-temperature relationship (Reference 8)

with Monahan's empirical relationship given b y

where

T 1 = Reference temperature, degrees Kelvin

Tao = Freestream s t a t i c temperature, degrees Kelvin
Tw = Wall temperature, degrees Kelvin
y = Specific heat ratio

K = Empirical constant = 0.5 for a i r

j = Empirical constant = 1.0 for a i r

NOTE:

A constant wall temperature of 1367OK and specific heat ratio of 1.15 have been assumed for the

flight conditions analyzed.

The primary viscous interaction effects are in shear forces w i t h essentially no effect on normal force. Variation of V; along the nominal entry trajectory i s illustrated in Figure 26. High values of correspond to low values of Reynolds number which i s associated with the thickening of the hypersonic laminar boundary layer causing increased shear on the lower supface of the Orbiter. Evidence of this i s seen as an increase in axial force coefficient with increasing VA with no change in normal force, Figure 27. Pitching moment a t zero degree control deflection, Figure 28, becomes slightly more negative with increasing VA due to increased shear forces on the lower surface of the Orbiter. A t negative (trailing edge-up) control deflections, the movement of the control surface has-little effect on the boundary layer on the lower surface of the Orbiter, and consequently, the effect of VA on ,pitching moment i s similar to the zero degree deflection case. For positive (trailing edge-down) deflections, however, the pitching moment effectiveness of the control surface decreases with increasing VA. A t high VA (corresponding to low Reynolds number) a thickening of the boundary layer results with a separation point which moves forward with increasing control deflection. This causes a net forward movement of the center of pressure, resultFigure 28. ing in reduced pitching moment effectiveness with increasing

v;

v;,

Effects of F on aerodynamic performance characteristics are indicated in Figures 29 and 30 for a A nominal entry trajectory. The decrease in lift-to-drag ratio caused by the increase in axial force i s accounted for in design of the entry trajectory. Reduced elevon effectiveness increases the control surface deflection required to trim, Figure 30.

Longitudinal Characteristics Longitudinal s t a b i l i t y and control characteristics for hypersonic to low speed Mach numbers are illustrated in Figures 31 and 32. These data have been determined as a result of extensive wind tunnel tests (representative data are shown on the curves) w i t h hypersonic theory being used to bridge the gap between high supersonic data and the hypersonic wind tunnel data. Low-speed longitudinal characteristics shown in Figure 32 demonstrate stall-free characteristics over the operating angle of attack range. The predicted characteristics are compared with t e s t data obtained with a 0.36-scale model in the Ames Research ) Center 40x80-ft (12.19x24.38 m wind tunnel. The changes in s t a b i l i t y evidenced in Figure 32 by the large changes in pitching moment a t high angles of attack are due t o leeside separation on the orbiter wing induced by vortices from the wing/fuselage junction. The leeside flow separation influences the supersonic stabil i ty characteristics a1 so. Referring t o Figure 31, i t can be seen that for M = 10 and 5, the variation of pitching moment with normal force coefficient for zero and positive elevon deflection follows the classical Newtonian "sine squared" relationship. This relationship between pitching moment and normal force coefficient does not follow the "sinesquare" variation for negative elevon deflections. The change in characteristics i s due to the change in flow pattern on the leeside of the Orbiter wing as influenced by negative elevon deflections. The surface flow patterns on the leeside of the Orbiter wing consist of three distinct flows. A t low angles of attack, the flow which i s i n i t i a l l y perpendicular to the leading edge i s turned parallel to the freestream by the presence of the fuselage (Figure 33A). W e the angle of attack i s great enough to cause hn the wing leadin edge shock to detach, the trailing edge shock will become strong enough t o separate the boundary layer ?Figure 338). This separation i s the result of subsonic flow a f t of the detached shock expanding around the leading edge and reattaching a t supersonic speeds. The flow must s t i l l be turned into the freestream direction as before. The turning i s accomplished by a strong shock that causes the boundary layer t o separate. The wake begins t o affect the flow pattern a t higher angles of attack causing a secondary type of separation (Figure 33C). Leeside flow boundaries for M = 6.0 are shown in Figure 34. The relationship between spanwise location of the shock induced separation bs, and Mach number was obtained from a correlation of delta wing data. The shock detach boundary was obtained from oil flow photographs.

The effect of leeside separation on wing pitching moment i s shown in Figure 35. The subsonic leading edge suction that occurs when the b w shock detaches results in a more stable pitching moment slope. The o change to a more stable slope i s the result of leading edge suction when the wing b w wave detaches and a o reduction of l i f t over the wing area a f t of separation line (Figure 35). The center of pressure i s more a f t for the l i f t gain (due to leading edge suction) than for the l i f t loss due t o shock-induced pressure a f t of the separation line. The wing pitching moment becomes more stable, thus accounting for the increased s t a b i l i t y shown in Figure 31 for +lo-degrees elevon deflection. Elevon effectiveness i s also influenced by leeside separation. Loss in elevon effectiveness a t high negative ( t r a i l i n g edge up) deflection can be attributed t o the effect of back-pressure on the leeside flow field. Flap type controls will often cause boundary layer separation, especially in hypersonic lowdensity flows. Such back-pressure effects are of practical concern since i t i s desirable to control the Orbiter with leeward control deflection (trailing edge up) in order t o minimize control surface heating. Figure 36 shows elevon effectiveness data obtained from the AEDC Tunnel A a t M = 5 for an elevon deflection -35 degrees. The measured elevon effectiveness i s seen t o be less than shown by shock expansion theory. This i s probably due to shock-induced separation. The separation extent increases with angle of attack. After the angle of attack for shock detachment i s reached, the back-pressure effect from the elevon will affect the wing flow. A t high angles of attack, the positive l i f t produced by the wing vortices outweighs the negative l i f t generated by the elevon-induced flow separation over the inner wing surface. The result i s a loss of elevon effectiveness below the shock expansion value. Adjusting the theory for leeside separation results in reasonable agreement between theory and experiment. Static trim capability for the elevon and body flap positioned for trim to the forward and a f t center of gravity positions i s displayed in Figure 37. The control schedules presented on the figure are for determining maximum obtainable center of gravity trim limits. A reserve for maneuvering, trimming spanwise center of gravity offset, manufacturing misal ignments , and aerodynamic uncertainties has been added to the limits of the elevon effectiveness data to establish the limits shown on the figure. The a f t center of gravity 1imits are based on a positive elevon deflection of 15 degrees for Mach numbers less than or equal to ten. A positive elevon deflection of ten degrees was used for Mach numbers greater than ten due to thermal protection system design limits during maximum heating conditions. Forward center of gravity trim limits are based on an incremental pitching moment coefficient reserve of 0.015 for Mach numbers less than o r equal t o ten and 0.02 for Mach numbers greater than ten. Figure 37 indicates a slightly reduced forward center of gravity trim margin a t Mach 5.0 in the angle of attack range rrom 20 to 45 degrees. This i s attributed to the loss in elevon effectiveness due t o leeside separation. Center of gravity trim limits for the entry angle of attack schedule have been shown earlier in Figure 7. Both Figures 7 and 37 indicate that a wide trim margin exists across the Mach number range. Elevon control power in conjunction with the body flap and speed brake provide trim capbility between the design center of gravity limits. The elevon schedule, shown in Figure 38, illustrates the nominal and the most positive and negative settings for trim a t forward and a f t center of gravity positions. The extreme settings account for control margin and uncertainties in aerodynamic characteristics. The speed brake i s i n i t i a l l y opened during entry a t Mach 10, and i s programed as a function of velocity to

approximately Mach 1. Opening the speed brake a t Mach 10 assists in longitudinal trim during the transition from high to low angle of attack. Below Mach 1 , the speed brake setting i s modulated to provide speed control during approach and landing. The body flap i s used as a trim device to keep the elevons operating in an effective range, and, during the high heating portion of entry, to keep the elevons from overheating. Body flap deflection varies during entry. For entry a t the forward center of gravity, the initial body flap position i s normally full-up. For the a f t center of gravity case, the initial position i s approximately 16 degrees down.

Lateral-Directional Characteristics Lateral-directional stability and control characteristics along the nominal entry trajectory are illustrated in Figures 39, 40, and 41. A shown in Figure 39, the Orbiter exhibits positive dihedral s effect (negative Cgg) across the complete Mach range during both the spacecraft and aircraft control modes. During the spacecraft mode, and during transition to the aircraft mode, the directional stability derivative Cn8 i s negative. Cns becomes positive indicating s t a t i c stability in yaw a t approximately Mach 1.7, ' and retains positive values throughout the aircraft mode (Mach numbers below approximately 1.5). Aileron and rudder control effectiveness characteristics are illustrated in Figures 40 and 41. Because the ailerons provide control authority across the complete Mach range, and the rudder i s essentially ineffective above Mach 8, the ailerons are used in conjunction with the yaw jets to provide for roll control in the spacecraft control mode. Early analytical studies predicted an elevon deflection interaction effect on the lateral-directional characteristics. Studies showed that the relatively large sized elevon in the presence of the deep, flatsided fuselage could induce a change in the pressure distribution in the a f t region of the fuselage. The resulting change in pressure distribution resulted in an incremental change in side force, yaw, and rolling moment when the vehicle was yawed. The effect of elevon interaction i s illustrated for the yawing and rolling moment derivatives in Figures 42 and 43. The control derivatives Cgda and Cn6 a are also affected by elevon position. The influence of elevon position on the control derivatites i s shiwn in Figures 44 and 45. The sensitivity of the derivatives to elevon position influences vehicle control boundaries. The nature of the control derivatives define the Mach regions where aileron and/or rudder i s used for lateral trim. Aileron-alone i s used for YCG trim above Mach number 4.5 and rudder-alone i s used for YCG trim below Mach number 3.5. A combination of aileron and rudder control i s used for trim in the Mach number region between 4.5 and 3.5. The yaw reaction control system (RCS) jets are used to augment the aerodynamic controls where required. The interrelation between the control derivatives and the method used to trim YCG offset during the spacecraft mode i s best illustrated by examining the relations for aileron and rudder required to trim. Using aileron-alone:

and for rudder-alone:

The critical boundary exists when the denominator goes to zero; i .e., the condition where aileron or rudder cannot produce a trim condition. For aileron-alone, the boundary i s defined by

Using rudder-alone :

Aileron and rudder cross coupling ratios are nominal aerodynamics. For the spacecraft control violated for Mach numbers greater than about 1.9. over the region from Mach 8 to approximately 1 . I ,

shown in Figure 46 for the nominal entry trajectory and mode, the boundary for YCG trim by aileron control i s not Trim of a YCG offset by rudder-alone can be accomplished resulting in an overlap from Mach 8 to 1.9 for nominal

aerodynamics. To allow f o r trajectory dispersions and uncertainties in aerodynamics, transition t o the a i r c r a f t control mode; i .e., conventional aileron/rudder control, i s i n i t i a t e d a t approximately Mach 5 and is complete by Mach 1.5. Low-speed directional s t a b i l i t y characteristics exhibit a strong Reynolds number/angle of attack effect, Figure 47. The figure i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of full-scale Reynolds number testing on high angle of attack aerodynamics. Test data obtained from models tested a t low Reynolds numbers (5 5 x lo6 based on mean aerodynamic chord) show essentially no change of directional s t a b i l i t y with angle of attack. The early work of Polhamus (Reference 12) and Jorgensen and Brownson (Reference 13) indicated that Reynolds number and body corner radius could have a significant effect on the h i g h angle of attack characteristics of the Orbiter. These predictions were borne out when the Orbiter model was tested a t near full-scale Reynolds number in the Ames Research Center 40x80-foot (12.2x24.4 m) wind tunnel Referring t o Figure 47, i t can be seen t h a t the high Reynolds number t e s t data shows a decrease in directional s t a b i l i t y with angle of attack which i s in contrast to the low Reynolds number data which shows essentially no change in s t a b i l i t y w i t h angle of attack. A t Mach numbers above 0.7, data representative of f l i g h t Reynolds numbers can be obtained in wind tunnel t e s t s a t low Reynolds numbers provided proper attention is paid to close matching of body corner rounding on the wind tunnel models and f l i g h t vehicles (Reference 13).

The early work of E.C. Polhamus (Reference 12) was used t o predict the variation of directional stab i l i t y with angle of attack. Based on Polhamus' work, i t was determined that the low-speed/high angle of attack directional s t a b i l i t y determined by wind tunnel t e s t s would be erroneous unless the Reynolds number were sufficiently high t o permit proper simulation of the cross flow on the forward fuselage. I t was predicted t h a t a close similarity i n both magnitude and change with Reynolds number, existed between the cross flow drag coefficient for the Orbiter fuselage a t high angles of attack (greater than 15 degrees) and a two-dimensional square cylinder a t 90 degrees angle of attack. From t h i s similarity, i t was concluded t h a t most of the low-speed Orbiter t e s t data would be within the c r i t i c a l Reynolds number range, the range in which cross flow drag coefficient decreases from h i g h to low values as the Reynolds number increases from subcritical t o c r i t i c a l . Polhamus presented data from t e s t s made on noncircular cylinders w i t h the a i r flow directed normal t o the cylinder axis. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 48 for a square-shaped cylinder w i t h rounded corners, the a i r flow will separate on the leeside a t subcritical Reynolds number b u t will remain attached a t supercritical Reynolds number, when the flow i s directed a t an angle not aligned with one of the major cross sectional axes. For the subcritical Reynolds number case, the r e s u l t ant body axis side force, Cy, i s positive while for the supercritical Reynolds number case, the side force i s negative. Since the center of gravity i s behind the nose, positive side force translates to positive yawing moment and negative side force translates t o negative yawing moment. Consequently, the effect of going from subcritical t o supercritical Reynolds number is t o reduce the directional s t a b i l i t y of the vehicle. Presented i n Figure 49 i s the measured directional s t a b i l i t y variation w i t h cross flow Reynolds s number from several wind tunnel t e s t s a t approximately 20 degrees angle of attack. A can be seen, there appears t o be a trend for the Orbiter directional s t a b i l i t y t o decrease as the cross flow Reynolds number i s increased. The reason for the reduction of directional s t a b i l i t y with increased cross flow Reynolds number is the elimination of the flow separation a t the nose w i t h increased cross flow Reynolds number. A t angles of attack of 15 degrees and below (Figure 47), there appears t o be no change of directional stab i l i t y f o r the different t e s t s .

FLIGHT TEST RESULTS The Approach and Landing Test (ALT) Program, Table 6, was conducted during the l a s t half of 1977 part of the Shuttle Development Program. The Orbiter Enterprise (OV101) was launched from the Boeing Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Edwards Air Force Base, California, and glided t o either a landing on Rodgers Dry Lake, or on the l a s t f l i g h t , a landing on the Edwards Air Force Base runway. The program consisted of eight captive f l i g h t s followed by three o r b i t e r freeflights w i t h the tailcone installed, finally two freefl ights in which the tailcone was removed, testing the orbital return configuration. as 747 conand

The captive f l i g h t s verified the airworthiness of the mated configuration, accomplished Orbiter systems checkout and developed the separation procedures, and verified aerodynamic forces a t separation. The separation of the Orbiter from the 747 was achieved through the aerodynamic forces on the vehicles, so one of the important objectives of the Captive Flight Program was t o verify the predicted separation forces, and adjust the Orbiter elevon settings f o r separation, i f required. Special load c e l l s were installed on the Orbiter/747 s t r u t s in order to measure the separation forces t o the required accuracy. The orbiter l i f t and pitching moments in the presence of the 747 were the key parameters for safe separation. Figure 50 shows these coefficients as determined during the captive f l i g h t s using load cell measurements, compared to estimates based on wind tunnel t e s t s . The f l i g h t measured coefficients were we1 1 w i t h i n the uncertainties in the prediction. Since dynamic analyses had shown acceptable separations i f the key aero coefficients were within the uncertainty band, the f l i g h t measurements confirmed that separation would be acceptable, and the program proceeded t o an Orbiter freeflight. The f i r s t separation occurred on August 12, 1977, and was as predicted. The f i r s t three Orbiter freeflights were conducted with a tailcone installed to f a i r the Orbiter's blunt base. The tailcone provided increased glide range by increasing the Orbiter L/D from a maximum of 4.5 t o 7.5. I t also allowed increased launch altitude, from 6400 m t o 7620 m. The tailcone also was intended t o reduce buffet levels a t the 747 empennage, since there was some concern t h a t w i t h the Orbiter tailcone-off, the Orbiter wake may induce excessive buffeting and reduce the 747 fatigue 1 i f e . (Flight measurements of fluctuating structural loads in the 747 t a i l l a t e r re1 ieved t h i s concern.)

After t h r e e tailcone-on f r e e f l i g h t s , t h e t a i l c o n e was removed and the t e s t program completed w i t h t h e o r b i t a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n simulated. Two O r b i t e r f r e e f l i g h t s were accomplished w i t h the t a i l c o n e removed. These f l i g h t s obtained t h e data used t o v e r i f y t h e subsonic aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the O r b i t e r i n i t s o r b i t a l r e t u r n c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Separation o f t h e orbiter1747 d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t a i l c o n e - o f f f r e e f l i g h t i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 50. I n Figure 51, t h e o r b i t e r i s shown j u s t p r i o r t o touchdown on the runway a t Edwards A i r Force Base during t h e f i n a l f r e e f l i g h t on October 26, 1977. The s i g n i f i c a n t O r b i t e r aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are compared w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s based on wind tunnel t e s t s , Figures 52 through 56. Key instrumentation used t o d e r i v e these data were an "Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Package" provided by t h e NASAIDryden F l i g h t Research Center, c o n s i s t i n g o f t h r e e accelerometers and t h r e e r a t e gyros, and a f l i g h t t e s t noseboom which provided angles o f a t t a c k and sides l i p , and p i t o t and s t a t i c pressures. A data e x t r a c t i o n pro ram was developed by t h e NASA t o determine t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Reference 147. The f i g u r e s show t h a t t h e f l i g h t measurements were i n good agreement w i t h wind tunnel p r e d i c t i o n s , w i t h t h e l o n e exception o f l a n d i n g gear drag which was overpredicted by approximately 27 percent. Examination o f t h e wind tunnel data revealed t h a t the estimated Reynolds number c o r r e c t i o n t o gear drag was inadequate. Thus, the aerodynamics o b j e c t i v e o f t h e Approach and Landing Test Program; t o v e r i f y t h e low-speed aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , was achieved and provided increased confidence f o r t h e n e x t phase o f t h e S h u t t l e Program, the O r b i t a l F l i g h t Test.

CONCLUSIONS Aerodynamic development o f t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r has been described. Extensive wind tunnel t e s t i n g has provided a h i g h confidence 1eve1 i n the estimated aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Results from the approach and l a n d i n g f l i g h t t e s t program v e r i f y p r e d i c t e d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e subsonic speed regime. Accounting f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n aerodynamic data w i l l a1 low incremental extension o f f l i g h t envelopes t o achieve p r e d i c t e d operational c a p a b i l i t y .

REFERENCES 1. Surber, T.E. and Olsen, D.C., "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Aerodynamic Development," Journal o f Spacecraft and Rockets, Vo1 15, No. 1, January-February 1978, pp 40-47

2.
3. 4.

Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Volume 1 , O r b i t e r Vehiicle," November 1977, Report No. SD 72-SH-0060-1K Smith, E.P., Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r and Subsystems ,I1 June 1973, D Report No. S 72-SH-0144 Gamble, Joe D., Chrysler Corporation Space D i v i s i o n , "High Supersonic S t a b i l i t y and Control Characteri s t i c s o f a 0.015-Scale (Remotely C o n t r o l l e d Elevon) Model 49-0 o f the Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Tested i n t h e NASAILaRC &Foot UPWT (LA63B)," May 1976, Report No. D S DR-2279, NASA CR-144.606 M NASA LaRC, "High Reynolds Number Research," October 1976, Report No. NASA CP-2009, pp 2-17 Hayes, Wallace D., and Probstein, Ronald F., Press, 1959, pp 333-345 "Hypersonic Flow Theory," New York and London, Academic

W h i t f i e l d , Jack D., and G r i f f i t h , B.J.. , "Hypersonic Viscous Drag E f f e c t s on B l u n t Slender Cones," AIAA Journal, Vo1 2, No. 10, October 1964, pp 1714-1722

Bertram, M i t c h e l l H., NASA, "Hypersonic Laminar Viscous I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s on t h e Aerodynamics o f Two-Dimensional Wedge and T r i a n g u l a r Planform Wings," August 1966, Report No. NASA TN D-3523 Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Aerodynamic Design Substantiation Report, Volume 1, O r b i t e r Vehicle," February 1978, Report No. SD 74-SH-0206-1 K Stein, Robert E., Jr., Lockheed E l e c t r o n i c s Inc., "Project 331 3, Mu1t i p l e Regression Analysis Program f o r t h e Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t Analysis System (NASA Contract NA9-122000)," January 1973 Rausch, J. R., General Dynamics Convair D i v i s i o n , "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Rear Mounted Reaction Control System J e t I n t e r a c t i o n Study," May 1977, Report No. CASD-NSC-77-003 Pol hamus, E. C. , "Effect o f Flow Incidence and Reynolds Number on Low Speed Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Several Noncircular Cylinders w i t h A p p l i c a t i o n t o D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y and Spinning," NASA Technical Report R-29, 1959
8

Jorgenson, Leland H. and Brownson, Jack J., " E f f e c t o f Reynolds Number and Body Corner Radius on Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Space Shuttle-Type Vehicle a t Subsonic Mach Numbers," NASA TN D-6615, January 1972 14. Romere, P.O., E i c h b l a t t , D.L., underwood, J.M., and Howes, D.B., "The Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Approach and Landing Tests-A C o r r e l a t i o n o f F l i g h t and Predicted Performance Data," AIAA Paper 78-793, AIAA Tenth Aerodynamic Testing Conference, San Diego, CAY A p r i l 19-21, 1978

A K O LD E E T C N WE GMNS The aerodynamic design a c t i v i t i e s described in t h i s report are being accomplished by the Space Division, Rockwell International, under N S contract NAS9-14000. Overall technical management of o r b i t e r developAA ment i s accomplished by the Space Shuttle Program Office a t the N S Johnson Space Center (JSC). AeroAA dynamic development i s directed by JSC through the Space Shuttle Flight Performance Technical Management r r area, M. Bass Redd, Technical Manager, supported by M. James C. Young, Aerodynamic Subsystem Manager. In addition t o JSC, the other N S Centers (Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall AA Space Flight Center) have provided extensive support t o the Shuttle development i n accomplishment of the Wind Tunnel Program and i n analysis of t e s t results. In addition, the Langley Research Center has provided additional program support through t h e i r independent investigations of nonl inear aerodynamics.

A t Rockwell, significant contributions t o t h i s paper have been made by Messrs. D.C. H.S. Dresser, W.R. Russell and L.M. Gaines.
Table 1 BASELINE REFERENCE MISSIONS
MISSION 1 LAUNCH SITE OBJECTIVE INCL. (DEG) 28.5 ORBIT ALTfTUDE VJRATIO! (10 n) (DAYS) 277.8 PAYLOAD (lo3 ~ g ) ASCENT DESCENT 29.48 14.51

Olsen,

Table 4 SPACE SHUTTLE WN T N E MODEL S M A Y ID U NL U MR A G S 1972 T FIRST ORBITAL FLIGHT U UT O

NUMBER OF MODELS ORBITER VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS AERODYNAMIC HEATING STRUCNRAL DYNAMICS TOTAL 11 22 12 45 MATED LAUNCH VEHICLE 23 14 6 43 CARRIER AIRCRAFT 4

K C PAYLOAD DELIVERY

TOTAL

SPACELAB

38
36 20 94

0 2
6

Tabl e 2 A R D N MC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS EOYA I Tabl e 5 SIGN1FICANT A R D N MC PARAMETERS EOYA I

HYPERSONIC TRPJ6ONIC SUBSONIC CENTER OF GRAVITY RANGE MINIMUM T W E L DESIGN RANGE LANDING PERFORMRNCE PAYLOAD LANDING WEIGHT (MITH PAYLOAD) MINIMUM DESIGN TOUCHDOWI~SPEED, VD LONGITUDINAL STABILITY MINIMUM HYPERSONIC STATIC MARGIN MINIMUM SUBSONIC STATIC MARGIN (RFT CENTER OF GRAVITY) LIFTIDRAG EaDULATION PEAK SUBSONIC VALUE (GEAR-UP. 655 = 0 ) PEAK SUBSONIC VALUE (GEAR-UP. 655 = 8 5 DEG NOT LESS THAN 4.4 NOT LESS THAN 2.5 2% BODY LENGTH 0.65 LB 25 DEG TO 5 0 DEG 0 DEG TO 1 5 DEG -5 DEG TO 2 0 DEG
AEROOYWIC PARAMETERS LID FLIGHT REGllE YHY PAPAMETERS ARE SIGNIFICANT AERO CONCERN I N DEFINITION OF PAPAMETERS

0.675 LB

I! F: I..
TO

REAL GAS EFFECTS NOT

I
POSITIVE -2% LB (-5.45% MAC)
6

cn6'

, C , Cng
6

. ,

/ 1
EUCH 5 TO 6
HIGH SUPERC 5 H SUPEWTRANSONIC NdUI 2.5 TO 1.0 4 7

DESIGN HINGE W E N T CONOITIONS DEFINES CONTROL SURFACE STALL CONDITIONS

TRANSONIC MIND TUNNEL DATA ACCURACIES

AILERON USED FOR BOTH ROLL a YAY TRIM A W E NdCH S BEFORE RUDDER BEUmE EFFECTIVE YAY JET FUEL USAGE ( W E TO CG OFFSET)
TO 5. W E S USED FOR. R W YAW 6 ROLL TRIM. AILERON 03ORDINdTES TURN YAU JET NEEDED UNTIL RUDDER I S EFFECTIVE DEFINES SYITCH-OVER POINT

. BENEEN EUCH 1.5

m t i T w L SURFACE INTERACTIOH

. .

. .
. .

CONTROL SURFACE INTERACTIONS RUDDER EFFECTIVEHESS AT HIGH a, HACH AEROEWTIC EFFECTS TRANSONIC WIND TUNNEL DATA ACWRAClES

Table 6 APPROACH & L N I G TEST P O R M S M A Y A DN R GA U MR

NO. OF FLIGHTS L4RRlER ALONE CONFIGUPATION MODIFIED 747 MODIFIED 747 WITH ORBITER ATTACH STRUCTS 6 TIP FIMS 747 6 ORBITER, TAILWNE-ON, ORBITER UNHANNEO L UNPOUEREO OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONAL CHECK, FLUTTER, L STALL CHECKS FLUTTER CLEAPANCE, PERFORMANCE, b STABILITY 1 CONTROL VERIFICATlON FLUTTER CLEQANCE, PERFOWCE, 6 STABILITY L m N m o L VERIFICATION ORBITER FUNCTIONAL CHECK, SEPAlTlON LORDS, L PROCEDURES VERIFICATION TAlLCOhE-ON TAILCONE-OFF CAPTIVE IllERT 4 FERRY WIIFIGURATION. TAILCONE-OH CRM FAHILIARIIATION, S Y S T W CHECK. STABILITY 6 CONTROL. L PERFORMNEE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION OF ORBITER APPROACH L LANOING CAPABILITY FERRY QU~LIFICATION PERFORMPNCE VERIL FICATION

Table 3 SPACE SHUTTLE WN TUNNEL TEST H U S S M A Y ID O R U MR A G S 1972 TO FIRST ORBITAL FLIGHT U UT

I
I
I

AERODYNAMICS AERODYNAMIC HEATING STRUCTURAL OYNAMICS TOTAL

I1 11 1(
14,700 4,500 8.100 6,400

ORBITER VEHICLE

LAUNCH VEHICLE

CARRIER AIRCRAFT 3,400 0 400

TOTAL HOURS

CAPTIVE FLIGHT

lsooO 1'600
116,100

120,200

13,800

140,1001

EXTERNAL

SOLID ROCKET BWSTER (SRB) 3.70 DlA

'

g &
249.909 2.265 45 81 12.060 3.5

vmr.sms.
28.192 1.615 45 3.043

bSPECT RATIO SHEEP (DEG) LEADING EDGE GLOVE n.A.c. (.I DlHEMAL (DEG)

(laz)

SRB THRUST ATTACH

CONTROL SURFACE AREA 6 IUXINJU DEFLECTION ARM (m') DEFLECTION (DEG) ELEWN (WE SIOE) 19.509 -35 TO +20 RUWER 10.233 r22.8 SPEED BRAE 10.233 0 T 87.2 O 12.541 -11.7 r22.5 BODY F U P

ORBITER I \

TANKIORBITER AFT ATTACH

F i g . 1 SPACE SHUTTLE VEHICLE

Fig. 2 ORBITER VEHICLE

Fig. 3

THERMAL PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM

Fig. 4

SHUTTLE MISSION PROFILE

W E L I N E UHOIHG YEIGm I14.Sl5 Kg PAYLMOJ

WlIWJI IAYOIHG
(No PAYLOAD) 4 * i , G ; i EPzH &

.- I .A
SPEED 5.4 W E C TAILWINO]

34

WIT M Y AT SEA LEVEL 14,515 Kg PAYLOAD 5.1 d S E C TAlLYlNO ORBITER YET GRWVEO

MIY K U W i OISPLRSIONI h

(W YINOI

DISPERSION

,
TIME FRon EMTRY (SECONDS)

,
90

,i,,
1W 110 70

60

70

80

ORBITER LANDING YEIGHl (1WO Kg)

80 90 100 110 T W U M VELOCITY (WSEC TRUE GROUND SPEED1

120

Fig. 5

ORBITER ENTRY TRAJECTORY

Fig. 6

LANDING REQUIREMENTS

C NT N A rOD II S) O I
CONTROL LIMITS

0.57
0.58

FWD CONTROL LIMIT

0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67

CENTER OF GRAVITY LOCATION

MACH NUMBER

Fig. 7

ORBITER T R I M L I M I T S

Up r Surlare: 0.1397f 0.0508

~ Edge Radius: 0.1524 G ~ ~

(MaiiaumJ

ALL D I M E N S I O N S IN C E N T I M E T E R S

Lower W l n g l E x c e p l E l e v o n l Lowor Fuseloge Y/LS 0.3

F i g . 8 ORBITER MOLD LINE/STEP CRITERIA

I
SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTREVIEW TRRJECTORY

SIM FACILITY

WOfL SCALE

ORBITAL FLlGHT P R O O 0 101 ASSEMOLY 6 ROLL-OUT R FIRST CAPTIVE FLiGHT APOC PR AH

=
m

'
los;

AO A EC

I I
I

L---

2
AD B EC

WDEL

L LANOIllG TLST L ROLL-OUT

FLIGHT

O B 102 ASSEMBLI R

A C 9x7 R AO A EC

0.05 0.02

10'

FACILITY

MOEL SUUI

FIRST MANNED ORBITAL

0.5

1.5

2.5

10

20

I M NWER

I C H RUlER

W N ME H U BR

F i g . 9 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM MILESTONES

F i g . 1 0 ORBITER FLIGHT REYNOLDS NUMBER SIMULATION

F i g . 11 ORBITER AERODYNAMIC WIND TUNNEL PROGRAM

F i g . 1 2 OV102 MODEL FIDELITY

a I 1.....1- w
0

1 6.0

F i g . 13

L I F T COEFFICIENT TOLERANCES

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.9

C N w t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c i

F i g . 14 NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT COMPARISON OF WIND TUNNEL TO FLIGHT DATA

F i g . 15 ORBITER EVOLUTION SUMMARY

,_(

MRGIN~ND CG 0.5% L STATIC

I
0.3W

Ylblt

BLENDED DELTA

WUBLE DELTA

'

0.425 y /

.REDUCE GLOVE LEADINGEDGE RADIUS TO 15.24 sn HORlUL TO GLOVE LEADING EDGE

I

FS 8 0 0

FS IWO

.HOVE GLOVE-TO-WIN6 INIERSECTION TO 0.425 SEMI-SPAN Y l T H S W L FAIRING AT InTERSECTlMl . N I S I 6 UUIBER FM( IWROVEO BASIC LOID
"NO

CG

F i g . 16 BLENDEDIDOUBLE-DELTA WING MODI FICATION

F i g . 17 BLENDEOIDOUBLE-DELTA WING MODI FICATION EFFECT ON LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS

PDR VEHICLE

CUR VEHICLE

PDR VEHICLE

CDR VEHlCLT

.Awlom

I W 1 N S USUlED N OE 1AIIY WINKHA ADILOW a IIKX wnuw

FArnNG USUlS IWAUILDS

w LVWC U M 6 INCUAYO

M L L N O Y UDlUI 6 FAIUD NOY naon~s ~UNSI~WN 6 #DUCTS SWFAQ liM?

F i g . 18 REDUCED NOSE RADIUS. AND REFAIRED NOSE SECTION

F i g . 19 LOWER WINGIBODY FAIRING

PDR VEHICLE

ANGLE O ATTACK F

i W ?OW1

CDR VEHICLE

--

REUTlYE VELOCITY. 10W WSEC

Fig. 20

UPPER BODY LINES

F i g . 21

TYPICAL ORBITER ENTRY PROFILE

SYM NUMBER

NOZZLE

TEST NLDBER FACILITY OA-82.M-22 LaRC CFHT OA-82,w2 OA-82.MAZ2 MA-22 MA-22 AEDC B OA-169 OA-169

F i g . 2 2 RCS AND CONTROL SURFACE UTILIZATION DURING ENTRY

0.04

ii
I-

E=0.02
0

POINTS = 150 STO. OEY. = 0.002368

0.02

RCS EFFECTIVENESS COMPONENTS JET THRUST PLUME IMPINGEMENT FLOW FIELD INTERACTIONS
NO7ZLE S M NUEBER Y

0.04 0.06 0.08 mmENTUM RATIO $j/C TEST NUlgER OA-82.MA-22

MA-22

0.10

0.12

FACILITY LaRC CFHT

OA-169 OA-169 OA-169

--

AD B EC

0
F

0.02 M S FLOY RATIO AS

0.04

0.06

hj/mm

Fig. 23

REACTION CONTROL JET INTERACTIONS

Fig. 24

REACTION CONTROL JET CORRELATION

a =

20'

6 = O0

6E = 68F = OD IMPINGEMENT M M N (N-m) O ET -8:030 t8.690 -7,860

9,

= 47.9 N/m2

C NR L OTO AXIS ROLL PITCH YW A

3-JET WMENT (N-rn) t36.590 -126,600 -38,300

INTERACTION M M N (N-m) O ET -27,040 t43,775 -4,860

NET M M N (N-m) O ET t1.520 -74,135 -51,020

E-B
Y 0:

t;

2
= ' A
VACUUN THRUST F R O O E JET (N) N N j = 3570 Aj = -756 Y j = 1298 0.W1 4 6

$
S
" 2

0.010

SYH

FACILITY MF S C 14"TWT A C 3.5'HWT R

..
>

--

1 AEDC - FWT
8
10 12 14 16 18 20 HRCH NUWER 22 24 26

28

30

F i g . 25

REACTION CONTROL JET MOMENTS

F i g . 26 VARIATION OF VISCOUS PARAMETER ALONG NOMINAL ENTRY TRAJECTORY

SW n .

NT P.

or-n

FKlLIN

rnrvlvs

F i g . 27

EFFECTS OF VISCOUS INTERACTION ON NORMAL AND AXIAL FORCE

T S DESIGN TRAJECTORY 14414.1 P

WITHOUT VISCWS INTERACTION A D L W DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS N O

\------------

ACTION REGIME

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0 ALTITUDE VISCWS P M T E R vL

100 10' METERS

200

F i g . 28

EFFECTS OF VISCOUS INTERACTION PITCHING MOMENT

F i g . 29 VISCOUS INTERACTION EFFECT ON L I FT-TO-DRAG RATIO

Fig. 3 0 VISCOUS INTERACTION EFFECT ON

CG TRIM CAPABILITY

Fig. 32 LOW-SPEED LONGITUDINAL

CHARACTERISTICS

SYN FACILITY

ARC 11x11

PITCHING WMENT C %.65~,

PITCHING MOMENT C %.65~,

Fig. 31

LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

SHOCK INWCED

ATTACHED FLW
H

SHOCK INWCED SEPARATION

6.0

LEADING EDGE SEPARATION

- ANGLE

OF ATTACK (DEG)

Fig. 33 LEESIDE FLOW PATTERNS

Fig. 3 4 LEESIDE FLOW BOUNDARIES

. b

I
gK5%TAUIED

SHOCK DRAUIED MUI 8.0 S W IUM FACILITY

'I

'

\LolO\,

AEDC A 6 * -35, lUCH 5.0

C.P. L W I N G E m

0
M H T c w m

12

16

20

24

28

32

ANGLE OF

ATTACK (DE6)

F i g . 35

LEESI'DE FLOW SEPARATION EFFECT ON PITCH STABILITY

F i g . 36

HYPERSONIC CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS

FORWARD CG

per deg

"L
0.5d I
0.40

I
0.d.

I
Odl

0.72

I
016

CENTER OF GRAVITY. XCG/LB

F i g . 37 TRIM CAPABILITY

C, l

per dcg

-0.001

1 0.2

0.4

0.6 0.8 1.0

2 MACH NUMBER

I 6

, , 8 1 0

20

F i g . 38

ELEVON DEFLECTION SCHEDULE

F i g . 39 LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL STABILITY DERIVATIVES

0.W2-

LW)IIIl!N o SUIEWLE F O M M D CENTER OF GWLVlTY 6 . 0 OEG

NOMINAL SOIEWLE 6 - O O E G

F i g . 4 0 AILERON EFFECTIVENESS

F i g . 41

RUDDER EFFECTIVENESS

(PER OEG) .A :C :

t' /-"'
+
C
I

E l
SM Y TEST NO.

- M = 3.0

,
I

ACn6 0 (PER MG) -0.001

-0.002

-0. 002

-, -30

A R MIA EO BOOK
-. II

15'

t'

-40

030

-20

-10 6 OG , E

t10

t20

-20

-10 6 ,

,
0 OG E

+lo

+20

Fig. 42
M * 0.6
o * !iO

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION O CIRECTIONAL STABILITY N

SVM TEST NO.

3.0

A C (PER OEG)

-30

-20

-10 . 6

0 OG E

t10

Fig. 43

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION O ROLL DUE T SIDESLIP N O

0.005-

M = 0.6 a = 5 O

SM Y +

1 TEST NO.
1
OA-145

0.004

0.003

C (PER DEG)

0s' -30

'

'
-20

'
6,

'
-10

'

t10
6,-

DEG

M G

Cn6a

(PER DEG)

N.OO
M = 3.0

Fig. 44

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION O AILERON ROLL DERIVATIVE N

cn;yll

(PERDEG)'

-0.001

'

-0.001 -30 -20 6 , -10

0

-30

-20

-10 6 , - OG E

+lo

t10

-- OG E

Fig. 45

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION O AILERON Y W DERIVATIVE N A

Fig. 46

CROSS COUPLING RATIOS

'I
,
C3

M 2 NWER I
FREE FLIGHT 4

0.5.

9580 Nlm'

FREE RIGHT 5

g
R H IUSWNT I T G

4-

3 3' C:
F
0 RIM4

RIM 5 U C RA NETW I

2-

: '

- - - TOLERANCE
VARIATION

I
0.8

Fig. 52 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED DATA FOR ORBITER MATED TO 747 CARRIER

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 T R I M D LIFT COEFFICIENT CL TRIH

0.7

Fig. 53 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED L/D

0.7

DYHAnIC PRESSURE

9580 N h '

0.6
U

&
W

0.5

FREE FLIMT 4

/--

FREE RIGHT 5

0.4

PREDICTED

----_

,-.VARIATION 0 0

A
I

FREE FLIGHT 5

-/I
I

--0.4 0.5

----

TOLERANCE VARIATION
I
I

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.7

I 0.8

TRImD LIFT COEPFICIEM C L TRIM 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

ANGLE O ATTACK (KG) F

Fig. 55 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED TRIMMED ELEVON DEFLECTION

Fig. 54 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED LIFT COEFFICIENT

FREE RIWT 4

A M E FL1m 5

.A&
noB
ACD

0.0215

ETNIG X E DN

I
-1

I
4 6 8

-2

10

12

1 14

TIE (SEWNOS)

Fig. 56 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED DRAG