A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Terminal Velocity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 8th 11, 08:47 PM
Niobium Niobium is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Default Terminal Velocity

We all know the NASA method of re-entry Big shower of sparks and that's the scientists on the ground.

However, given a vehicle of 40,000 LB or 20,000Kg
travelling at say 3 miles per second at 200 miles above earth.

Now descend, trailing a parachute 600 feet in diameter or 282,000 square feet in cross-sectional area. Parachute is opened while in zero gravity by using small inflated rubber tubing annular rings in the rim of the chute.

Given at some point the density of atmosphere rises from zero to say 0.002 kg/m3

Given that drag coefficient is 0.7 for a parachute which eventually drags/spills out as it progressively collects molecules of air as it descends.

Best result I can figure is a terminal velocity of 116 m/sec

So is the math wrong or what ? If the chute fills progressively from an empty vacuum into thicker and thicker air, there should be no sudden explosive fill so no destructive force and I guess more and more drag and decelleration as it falls...

see calculator at http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal

Comments please.

Last edited by Niobium : March 9th 11 at 09:01 AM.
  #2  
Old March 9th 11, 01:45 PM
Niobium Niobium is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Default

I just found another reference where the drag of a cup-shaped object is quoted as 2.3 at http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0231.shtml

so plugging in values of even higher
mass 140,000 LB
Drag = 2.3
cross-section area 280,000 sq ft
density of atmosphere 0.002 kg/m3
gravity 1

produced terminal velocity of 334 ft/sec or 227mph

This would be at high altitude with very thin air. By the time the air is even one third density of ground zero the speed drops to 21 ft/sec or 14mph

My point being the re-entry of a large 140,000LB object from LEO to say the stratosphere needs only a 600 ft diameter chute to arrive at somewhere between 14mph and 227mph at which point an aerodynamic wing can be utilized, with no heating or protective tiles.

So why has this never been tested even with say one of the LOX tanks used to get the NASA shuttlle aloft ?
  #3  
Old March 11th 11, 01:57 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Sylvia Else[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 458
Default Terminal Velocity

On 10/03/2011 1:44 AM, Niobium wrote:
I just found another reference where the drag of a cup-shaped object is
quoted as 2.3 at
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0231.shtml

so plugging in values of even higher
mass 140,000 LB
Drag = 2.3
cross-section area 280,000 sq ft
density of atmosphere 0.002 kg/m3
gravity 1

produced terminal velocity of 334 ft/sec or 227mph

This would be at high altitude with very thin air. By the time the air
is even one third density of ground zero the speed drops to 21 ft/sec or
14mph

My point being the re-entry of a large 140,000LB object from LEO to say
the stratosphere needs only a 600 ft diameter chute to arrive at
somewhere between 14mph and 227mph at which point an aerodynamic wing
can be utilized, with no heating or protective tiles.

So why has this never been tested even with say one of the LOX tanks
used to get the NASA shuttlle aloft ?


Terminal velocity is not the only issue. The parachute would have to
cope with the heating effects.

Sylvia.

  #4  
Old March 11th 11, 01:57 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Terminal Velocity

Niobium wrote:

My point being the re-entry of a large 140,000LB object from LEO
to say the stratosphere needs only a 600 ft diameter chute to
arrive at somewhere between 14mph and 227mph at which point an
aerodynamic wing can be utilized, with no heating or protective
tiles.

So why has this never been tested even with say one of the LOX
tanks used to get the NASA shuttlle aloft ?


Two points:

1. A 600 ft diameter chute is an ungodly large parachute.

2. More importantly your scheme actually makes the reentry problem
*worse*. Basically the kinetic energy of an reentering object has to
dissipated. The only practical way to do that is to use that energy
to perform work on the surrounding atmosphere. When work is done on
the surrounding atmosphere, that atmosphere becomes hot. To minimize
the heat flux back into the object from that hot atmosphere one
should dcelerate as slowly as possible. To decelerate slowly requires
a very high, indeed, impractically high L/D (lift to drag ratio). A
parachute does the opposite, however; it essentially drives your L/D
to zero meaning that heat flux will be high enough to destroy any
parachute quickly.

Jim Davis

  #5  
Old March 11th 11, 01:58 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Dr J R Stockton[_104_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Terminal Velocity

In sci.space.tech message , Wed, 9 Mar
2011 08:55:30, Niobium posted:


However, given a vehicle of 40,000 LB or 20,000Kg
travelling at 17,000 mph at 200 miles above earth.

Now descend, trailing a parachute 600 feet in diameter or 282,000 square
feet in cross-sectional diameter.

Given at some point the density of atmosphere rises from zero to say
0.002 kg/m3

Given that drag coefficient is 0.7 for a parachute which eventually
fills out as it collects molecules of air as it descends.


Until it melts.


H'mmm - there has been concern about the effects of a solid booster
burst on the parachutes of a Launch Escape System. have they
investigated building a parachute out of buckytube fibres?

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7)

  #6  
Old March 12th 11, 03:20 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Sylvia Else[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 458
Default Terminal Velocity

On 11/03/2011 11:58 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.tech , Wed, 9 Mar
2011 08:55:30, posted:


However, given a vehicle of 40,000 LB or 20,000Kg
travelling at 17,000 mph at 200 miles above earth.

Now descend, trailing a parachute 600 feet in diameter or 282,000 square
feet in cross-sectional diameter.

Given at some point the density of atmosphere rises from zero to say
0.002 kg/m3

Given that drag coefficient is 0.7 for a parachute which eventually
fills out as it collects molecules of air as it descends.


Until it melts.


H'mmm - there has been concern about the effects of a solid booster
burst on the parachutes of a Launch Escape System. have they
investigated building a parachute out of buckytube fibres?


Don't say that - they might try it, with another $Billion down the drain.

Sylvia.

  #7  
Old March 12th 11, 03:20 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Peter Fairbrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Terminal Velocity

Niobium wrote:
We all know the NASA method of re-entry Big shower of sparks and
that's the scientists on the ground.

However, given a vehicle of 40,000 LB or 20,000Kg
travelling at 17,000 mph at 200 miles above earth.

Now descend, trailing a parachute 600 feet in diameter or 282,000 square
feet in cross-sectional diameter.

Given at some point the density of atmosphere rises from zero to say
0.002 kg/m3

Given that drag coefficient is 0.7 for a parachute which eventually
fills out as it collects molecules of air as it descends.

Best result I can figure is a terminal velocity of 116 m/sec

So is the math wrong or what ?


No, the math is right (I assume, I haven't checked the numbers), just
the expectation is wrong.

What you have at this point is a reentry vehicle traveling at 8,000 m/s
when the terminal velocity is 116 m/s.

What happens then? It's traveling much faster then it's terminal
velocity, so it decelerates.

Rapidly.

The force is such that the shrouds burst asunder; and then the parachute
itself (which is still traveling at 8 km/s) melts as it decelerates.

-- Peter Fairbrother


If the chute fills progressively from an
empty vacuum into thicker and thicker air, there should be no sudden
explosive fill so no destructive force and I guess more and more drag
and decelleration as it falls...

see calculator at http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal

Comments please.


  #8  
Old March 13th 11, 01:07 AM posted to sci.space.tech
delt0r
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Terminal Velocity

On Mar 9, 2:55 pm, Niobium wrote:
We all know the NASA method of re-entry Big shower of sparks and
that's the scientists on the ground.
....[snip]
So is the math wrong or what ? If the chute fills progressively from a

n
empty vacuum into thicker and thicker air, there should be no sudden
explosive fill so no destructive force and I guess more and more drag
and decelleration as it falls...

see calculator athttp://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal

Comments please.


The expectations are wrong. Say you do deploy a large parachute that
is stable at hypersonic speeds (good luck). Then you slowly decenend
into very thin upper atmosphere. You don't have lift (parachute vers
parafoil --parafoils are not stable at hypersonic speeds either) so
the first thing that happens is you slow down a little. This means you
now fall into the atmosphere quicker, which slows you down faster
still and hence fall even faster.

This type of ballistic reentry gives about a peak g loading of ~10g
regardless on how big the parachute is. For example a bigger chute
will mean peak g is higher in thinner air, while something smaller
will have its peak g loading in thinker air. Note total heat loading
is not the same. Larger means less total heat loading.

Now if we add lift things don't change as much as you may like. First
even quite bad L/D ratios (0.5 IIRC) can get you down to 3g peak, even
a capsule can get that. However it tuns out at hypersonic speeds
getting better L/D ratios is more or less impossible. So thats about
as good as it gets. Again larger area, or larger "wings" does not
change the peak g loading but does change the total heat load.

HS has made a number of posts on this group and others on this topic.
You should be able to easily find many of these posts on google
groups.

greg

  #9  
Old March 14th 11, 12:56 PM
Niobium Niobium is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Default

I read all of these posts with interest, thank you all for the replies. So let me reply.

1. Concept is a circular parachute inflated with a rubber ring around the hem,
inflated by low pressure gas. Now you have a a large area cup with drag coeff 2.3
(only if there is anything to drag against) Thats why large solar arrays flying at 50km/s dont crumple in space.

2. OK now you have said parachute falling to earth at 11km/s in essentially a vacuum but
the lower thermosphere and mesosphere of the earth, will be a progressive density from zero
molecules of air up to what ?? pick a number at the stratosophere.
That zone N miles thick is the depth a standard capsule falls before a re-entry capsule even starts being heated.
Actually its a slope since re-entry is not straight down but almost parallel to earth because
a capsule needs that long to decellerate. So for that period of time in the lower mesosphere
the capsule is burning up because tha drag on a small (10m wide ) heat shield is the part doing
the slowing against air at 17,000mph. I.e. the heat is concentrated there and only there.

3. However, and this is my point. In the early stages of re-entry such a parachute with much larger
drag area (nearly 300,000 square feet) is collecting air molecules and being slowed much higher in
the thermo/mesosphere and so its drag is working long before it can happen on a small area capsule.
And yes there is heating but more progressively.

Heat = work agreed but the idea here is to think outside the box.

Mathematically, if you have an infinitely large area decellerating against a mass of air the slowing
would be immediate. If you have a small capsule it needs much denser air and its small area is hitting
that air at high speed.
The middle of the road approach is to start the drag at much much higher altitudes where
the progressive slowing effect in the progressive increasing density has a chance
to slow before hitting the stratosphere.


My simple math says a parachute with 300,000 sq ft area versus a capsule with 1000 sq ft area
will work 300 times sooner and 300 times better so hopefully 300 times cooler.

comments?


By the way many years ago in the days of valve/vacuum tubes, electonics engineers said you
could never miniaturize computers cuz where would all the heat go.
They never imagined a situation without heat.

Last edited by Niobium : March 14th 11 at 02:29 PM.
  #10  
Old March 14th 11, 01:10 PM
Niobium Niobium is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Default

I am trying to think of an analogy.

Drop a feather and a steel pellet in a vacuum and they both drop at the same accelleration.
As the feather hits the mesosphere or wherever, it starts to hit air molecules, it slows while the
pellet with low surface area keeps falling until it is hitting much denser air and it burns up
in re-entry like a meteorite.

Also the air is rotating around the same speed as the planet rotation, so falling into the earths gravity
is necessarily a flat glide slope. Parachutes will glide around the earth from where they started falling.

NO ?

Last edited by Niobium : March 14th 11 at 01:24 PM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
STS-123 Crew Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test Pad Q and A /STS-122 John[_1_] Space Shuttle 0 February 24th 08 05:07 PM
Beyond the Bunk: Challenger's Terminal Timeline [email protected] Space Shuttle 5 November 10th 07 09:03 PM
terminal precedes Janet within bastard [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 19th 07 07:48 AM
A predicted Terminal event Golden Helmet Astronomy Misc 7 September 11th 06 09:53 AM
Soyuz-1 terminal velocity Ste Kearney History 20 December 31st 04 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.