Discussion of the Problems
The first problem brings up the risk of accidentally
impacting the surface of the planet,
since that surface is so closely adjacent to any practical aerobraking
trajectories. Very precise trajectory
control is required to make this work,
much more so than here at Earth.
It is not impossible, but it is
very demanding, when this technique is
to be used at Mars, which lacks the
navigation satellites we have here at Earth.
The second problem has two impacts: (1) factor two density variation is factor 2
drag variation, all else being
equal, which may be too large to assure
aerobraking into orbit, and (2) since
the variation is erratic, you cannot
know the density that exists at aerobraking altitude until you are actually in
the atmosphere attempting your aerobraking.
It will show up in your reduced speed and the peak gees decelerating to
it.
Conditions of the Approximate Analysis
The altitude for “entry interface” at Mars is generally
considered to be 140 km, per Justus and
Braun, who recommend using 135 km for
Earth entry interface altitude. On
Earth, peak decelerations are up nearer
80-90 km, while these occur lower on
Mars, primarily because Martian surface
densities look like Earth densities at 30-35 km altitude. I picked an arbitrary 50 km for my
ellipse periapsis altitude, to fall
approximately in the max braking range on Mars.
For speed at entry interface, I used the 7.5 km/s that Spacex quotes for
its peak entry speed with the Starship design. That is intended for direct entry from the
interplanetary trajectory. Here I am
investigating a braking alternative from those same conditions. That entry speed corresponds to a velocity
“far” from Mars near 5.6 km/s relative to Mars,
which implies a trajectory somewhat faster than a min energy Hohmann
transfer orbit.
The remaining variable is the initial braking ellipse
orbit apoapsis distance. To be a
ellipse at all, this must fall between
circular at the braking altitude, and
very eccentric with periapsis velocity very close to Mars escape. I used a 10 m/s difference between escape and
periapsis velocity as my largely-arbitrary criterion for the most elongated
ellipse that I would consider “stable”.
Anything falling outside those limits cannot lead to
repeat-pass aerobraking. If the
density and drag are too high, the
braking pass will inherently become an unplanned direct entry. If the
density and drag are too low, braked
speed exceeds escape, and the vehicle
bounces off the atmosphere into deep space.
Both outcomes are likely fatal,
especially bouncing off into deep space.
How the Repeat-Pass Aerobraking Works
The way this works is the vehicle approaches on a hyperbolic
path to pass past Mars at the braking altitude.
As it approaches Mars,
gravitational pull increases its speed to the entry interface
value, approximated as: Vint2 = Vinf2 + Vesc2, where Vesc is computed at the braking pass
altitude. Vint is the interface
speed, and Vinf is the speed relative to
Mars “far” from Mars. For this
analysis, I just set Vinf such that I
got Vint = 7.5 km/s.
During the pass,
density and velocity vary, so
drag varies. There is a drag work
integral with path length along the braking pass path. That integrated drag work subtracts from the
vehicle kinetic energy at entry interface,
so that kinetic energy (and vehicle velocity) are lower at the exit from
the braking pass. That final
velocity must fall in the range of feasible periapsis velocities for the
initial ellipse, or else you enter
direct if too low, or bounce off into
deep space if too high.
Once on a feasible ellipse,
there is drag braking at each periapsis pass, which reduces vehicle mechanical energy and
apoapsis altitude. After multiple
braking passes, the orbit circularizes
at the braking altitude, and the vehicle
then deorbits. That is the concept
behind repeat pass aerobraking. See Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Repeat-Pass Aerobraking Conditions and Analysis
Results
How the Analysis Was Conducted
I did not attempt to evaluate the actual drag work
integrals. Instead, I looked at kinetic energy differences
between entry interface speed and periapsis speed conditions for the range of
feasible braking ellipses. Those
kinetic energy differences are the required drag work integrals.
The max kinetic energy reduction (drag work integral) is for
a circular orbit (degenerate ellipse of eccentricity zero) at braking
altitude. That orbit has about a 1.7
hour period. The min credible kinetic
energy reduction (drag work integral) is for an extremely-elongated ellipse
with an apoapsis radius near 850,000 km.
Its period is nearly 3.3 months.
The ratio of those kinetic energy reductions (ratio of the drag
work integrals) is about 1.39.
Effects of Density Variability
For the same braking altitude (and it really won’t be, but we are ignoring that effect here), the drag work integral could vary max-to-min
by a factor of 2, simply because the
density can vary by that factor of 2. It
varies erratically, and you cannot know
what that density really is, until you have
completed the braking pass with the wrong exit velocity, which is far too late to adjust your braking
pass altitude. The factor 2
variation easily encompasses both unplanned direct entry and bouncing off into
deep space. Therefore you must
be prepared to compensate “on-the-fly” as you exit the first braking pass by
firing rockets to adjust your speed to the proper (or at least a feasible)
value.
It’s not that repeat-pass aerobraking won’t work, because it most certainly will. But at Mars,
the control of speed coming out of that initial braking pass requires
very precise control and adjustment “on the fly”, with a rocket burn of some significant
size. That plus the final
circularization burn into a stable low Mars orbit will be less than, but as much as some fair fraction of, the direct orbit entry burn of almost 4 km/s.
Control is simpler,
and to more certain requirements,
with the orbit entry burn approach.
But if one has real-time velocity information, and fast-response propulsion, one can do a real-time-tailored delta-vee
burn to exit the initial braking pass with the correct velocity. You have to plan this for the very worst
case, even if you never use that
propellant.
Conclusions
My
conclusion
is that the risk potential for a fatal outcome is just too high relative to the
feasible braking orbit entry conditions,
unless you bring extra propellant and some very sophisticated, precise,
and fast-acting controls. This
is not a technique that should be preferred for use at Mars! One would have to add some serious rocket
braking to prevent bouncing off, or unintentionally
landing direct but too steeply. If you
have to do that, then you might as well
just do rocket braking into orbit under much more certain control.
Details
The details of the calculations are shown in Figures 2
through 4. These are spreadsheet
images, two images per figure. I looked at a total of 6 ellipse
conditions, to see what the trend shapes
looked like. The approach to the bounce-off
point, just past the most elongated
orbit, is sort-of asymptotic in terms of
kinetic energy, so that energy estimate
is insensitive to the exact max apoapsis criterion.
Remember, because of
unpredictable upper-atmosphere density variations, the drag integral can vary through a factor
of 2. The ratio of drag integrals
leading to a feasible ellipse is only 1.39. Even if you do not care what ellipse you end
up on, the chances are very significant
that you could see a fatal outcome (unintended direct entry or bouncing off
into deep space), without a significant
propulsion allowance for adjusting speed as you leave the initial braking
pass.
If you care which ellipse you end up on, you simply must have propulsive speed adjust
capability coming out of that first braking pass. Either way, the propulsion must be sized for the worst
possible case, which Murphy’s Law says
will happen.
Figure 2 – Spreadsheet Images for Circular and Apoapsis at
Phobos
Figure 3 – Spreadsheet Images for Apoapsis at Deimos and a
One-Week-Period Orbit
Figure 4 – Spreadsheet Images for a One-Month-Period Orbit
and the Max-Credible-Elongated Orbit
No comments:
Post a Comment