ESA Document - Emits - ESA
ESA Document - Emits - ESA ESA Document - Emits - ESA
s 45˚ 60˚ 70˚ Figure 4-77: IBD shapes Half cone angle 45d 60d 70d Lref m 21.55 33.71 26.7 Sref m2 364.74 892.5 560 Table 4-38: Reference IBD characteristics HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 338 of 422 The aerodynamic coefficients were computed with the Newtonian methods and are shown in the Figure 4-78: Figure 4-78: Aerodynamic coefficients comparison The IBD shape selection is based on three coefficients: the drag and the lift coefficients and the reference surface. A drag coefficient and a reference surface should be high enough to reduce the velocity during the entry low enough to open the parachute; a lift coefficient should be enough to reduce the g-load during the entry according to the requirements for a human mission. Another requirement to be taken into account is the stability of the vehicle. The stability can be analysed knowing the distance between the centre of pressure and the centre of gravity. The module which has to be landed is made up from the bottom to the top by the retro-rockets needed to land, the habitation module and the MAV. The centre of gravity of this module is
s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 339 of 422 between half and three-quarter of the length from the bottom. Thus the centre of pressure shall be after this point, so the IBD shape should be long enough to fulfil this requirement. 4.4.2.3 Baseline design The baseline for the design is an IBD shape with a 60˚ half cone angle, with a reference diameter of 25m (reference surface of 490m 2 ). This shape was a good compromise between aerodynamic coefficients (drag, lift and L/D) and centre of pressure for the stability. Cd, Cl 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Figure 4-79: 60 degrees half cone angle, 25 m Base diameter 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mach number Figure 4-80: Aerodynamic coefficients vs Mach number CD CL L/D 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 L/D
- Page 287 and 288: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 289 and 290: s Insulation structure (external) F
- Page 291 and 292: s cryocooler heat lift [W] cryocool
- Page 293 and 294: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 295 and 296: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 297 and 298: s • a duty cycle value (duration
- Page 299 and 300: s Figure 4-48: MAV Power Inputs HMM
- Page 301 and 302: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 303 and 304: s 4.3.5.4.2 Power storage HMM Asses
- Page 305 and 306: s Figure 4-52: Regenerative Fuel Ce
- Page 307 and 308: s Figure 4-54: Solar irradiance on
- Page 309 and 310: s 450.00 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.0
- Page 311 and 312: s 4.3.6.1 Budgets HMM Assessment St
- Page 313 and 314: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 315 and 316: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 317 and 318: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 319 and 320: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 321 and 322: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 323 and 324: s Surface Surface Container MAV Con
- Page 325 and 326: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 327 and 328: s 4.3.9.3 Baseline design 4.3.9.3.1
- Page 329 and 330: s Bio-Lock Masses: Core Samples No.
- Page 331 and 332: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 333 and 334: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 335 and 336: s Figure 4-72: Entry Velocity (L) a
- Page 337: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 341 and 342: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 343 and 344: s 2 3.9 233 923.1 347 923 12.3 352
- Page 345 and 346: s Figure 4-85: Communications MEV/M
- Page 347 and 348: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 349 and 350: s 4.4.5.3.2 GNC equipment HMM Asses
- Page 351 and 352: s 4.4.5.4 Control laws generation H
- Page 353 and 354: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 355 and 356: s Finally, the Figure 4-97 shown th
- Page 357 and 358: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 359 and 360: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 361 and 362: s velocity (m/sec) altitude (km) 50
- Page 363 and 364: s 4.5 Mars Ascent Vehicle 4.5.1 Tra
- Page 365 and 366: s Term Value Unit Radius of equator
- Page 367 and 368: s 4.5.2.1 Requirements and design d
- Page 369 and 370: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 371 and 372: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 373 and 374: s Inclination (deg) 47.5 47 46.5 46
- Page 375 and 376: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 377 and 378: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 379 and 380: s 4.5.3 Structures HMM Assessment S
- Page 381 and 382: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 383 and 384: s 4.5.5 Thermal HMM Assessment Stud
- Page 385 and 386: s 4.5.5.3 Baseline thermal design H
- Page 387 and 388: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
s<br />
45˚ 60˚ 70˚<br />
Figure 4-77: IBD shapes<br />
Half cone angle<br />
45d 60d 70d<br />
Lref m 21.55 33.71 26.7<br />
Sref m2 364.74 892.5 560<br />
Table 4-38: Reference IBD characteristics<br />
HMM<br />
Assessment Study<br />
Report: CDF-20(A)<br />
February 2004<br />
page 338 of 422<br />
The aerodynamic coefficients were computed with the Newtonian methods and are shown in the<br />
Figure 4-78:<br />
Figure 4-78: Aerodynamic coefficients comparison<br />
The IBD shape selection is based on three coefficients: the drag and the lift coefficients and the<br />
reference surface. A drag coefficient and a reference surface should be high enough to reduce the<br />
velocity during the entry low enough to open the parachute; a lift coefficient should be enough to<br />
reduce the g-load during the entry according to the requirements for a human mission.<br />
Another requirement to be taken into account is the stability of the vehicle. The stability can be<br />
analysed knowing the distance between the centre of pressure and the centre of gravity.<br />
The module which has to be landed is made up from the bottom to the top by the retro-rockets<br />
needed to land, the habitation module and the MAV. The centre of gravity of this module is