-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
notes.txt
39 lines (30 loc) · 1.77 KB
/
notes.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Apollo:
- Offset centre of gravity to achieve lifting flight (can do in ksp?)
- L/D 0.3-0.4
- 28* AoA
- initial entry angle to horizon 5.2* to 9.45* @ 400,000ft (120000m), downrange flight up to 3500nm (6500km)
- entry velocity ft/sec 36,333 (11074 m/s)
- 20G max decel
- 600F (315C) bondline temp limit
- max heating rate (lunar) btu/sq.ft-sec = 425 (4,826,000 J/(s.m2))
- total ref heating btu/sq.ft = 37,522 (4.2e8 W/m2)
- weight for block 1 was 1700 (770kg) lb, for block 2 was 1500lb (680kg)
- area 365 sq.ft (33 sq.m)
- initial density 66 lb/sq.ft (322kg/sq.m) reduced to 35 lb/sq.ft (170 kg/sq.m) of ablative material
- aerodynamic pressure influences ablation rate (see FIRE tests)
- low-temp limit of -250F (116K), shield can fail if too cold (!)
- it actually flew steeper trajectories because the crew preferred it; 26500 btu total load, 1500 nm downrange; vs design of 44500 btu and 3500 nm downrange
- rescale for kerbin
per
- https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740007423.pdf
- https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930003261.pdf
Gemini, shuttle were insulating/radiative, not ablative. Less charring.
- was insulating and radiative, not ablative
Shuttle TPS didn't have to be as good due to 40 degree AoA and aerobrakes.
ksp ideas
- add upgrade nodes to improve heat shield performance and density; or
- extra heat shield parts for extreme environment re-entry
- offset CoM in pods for lifting downrange flight, AoA, spin stability
- tweakable balance slider parts, ballast parts? Add a "ballast" material? (problem is pumping sucks, can't be done from action groups)
- thermal protection parts designed to mould over stock parts for spaceplanes?
- lighter but lower performance radiative shields? (or treat them as just built in to spaceplane parts?)