When spacecraft return to Earth, they don\u2019t need to shed all their velocity by firing retro-rockets. Instead, they use the atmosphere as a brake to slow down for a soft landing. Every planet in the Solar System except Mercury has enough of an atmosphere to allow aerobraking maneuvers, and could allow high-speed exploration missions. A new paper looks at the different worlds and how a spacecraft must fly to take advantage of this \u201cfree lunch\u201d to slow down at the destination.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Aerobraking uses repeated dips into the atmosphere \u2013 i.e., atmospheric drag \u2014 to gradually slow the spacecraft and reduce the size of the orbit to achieve orbit insertion. This technique was first used by the Magellan mission to Venus in 1993, and has also been used on several Mars missions, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) in 2006. While aerobraking takes time, it saves on the amount fuel required. In MRO\u2019s case, aerobraking reduced the fuel needed by 600 kilograms (1,300 pounds).<\/p>\n The new paper, by Athul Pradeepkumar Girija from the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University, notes that one of the significant risks associated with aerobreaking or aerocapture is the uncertainty in the atmospheric density. For example, the atmospheric density that MRO actually experienced was much different than what was predicted by a NASA model called GRAM (Global Reference Atmospheric Model) for Mars.<\/p>\n \u201cAt some points in the atmosphere, we saw a difference in the atmospheric density by a factor of 1.3, which means it was 30% higher than the model,\u201d said Han You, Navigation Team Chief for MRO, in an article on Universe Today in 2006. \u201cThat\u2019s quite a bit, but around the south pole we saw an even larger scale factor of up to 4.5, so that means it was 350% off of the Mars GRAM model.\u201d<\/p>\n To make things even more challenging, the atmospheric density on Mars and other planets can vary widely from day to day, and even orbit to orbit.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the vehicle enters too shallow or encounters an atmosphere which is less dense than the expected minimum, spacecraft may exit the atmosphere without getting captured,\u201d Girija wrote in his new paper. \u201cIf the vehicle enters too steep, or the density is much higher than expected, the vehicle may bleed too much speed and fail to exit the atmosphere.\u201d<\/p>\n Both scenarios would lead to complete loss of mission. Therefore, adequate margins must be provided for the guidance system against these atmospheric uncertainties, in addition to delivery error and aerodynamic uncertainties.<\/p>\n To perform aerocapture, there are two kinds of aerodynamic control methods to control the rate of energy depletion as the vehicle flies through the atmosphere: lift modulation and drag modulation. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cLift modulation involves a \u2018lifting\u2019 aeroshell such as Apollo or Mars Science Laboratory aeroshell, which has a lift-to-drag (L\/D) ratio in the range of 0.24 \u2014 0.36,\u201d explained Girija in an email to Universe Today. \u201cControl is achieved by \u2018banking\u2019 the vehicle to fly deeper into the denser atmosphere, or higher into the thinner atmosphere. This control method requires the use of high-rate reaction control thrusters and is routinely used at Earth and Mars, and has extensive heritage in Apollo and MSL (Mars Science Laboratory) missions.\u201d<\/p>\n Lift modulation offers continuous control through the atmospheric flight while the reaction control guidance tries to achieve the desired location and \u201cexit state conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n Drag modulation, on the other hand, is a simpler control technique in which the control is achieved by continuous or discrete (occasional) modulation of the drag area using a deployable device.<\/p>\n \u201cDrag modulation vehicles have L\/D = 0, i.e. no lifting capability,\u201d Girija said. \u201cThe most common variant is a \u2018discrete event modulation\u2019 where a deployed drag skirt is jettisoned during the flight, with the jettison time being the only control variable.\u201d<\/p>\n By jettisoning the drag skirt at the correct time, Girija explained, it is possible to target a reasonably close exit state condition to what is ideal.<\/p>\n \u201cDrag modulation has been proposed as a \u2018cheaper\u2019 alternative to lift modulation,\u201d Girija said, \u201cby avoiding the use of RCS thrusters and is particularly attractive for small missions. Drag modulation has no flight heritage, though some of the basic technologies have been demonstrated in flight experiments such as the Adaptable Deployable Entry and Placement Technology (ADEPT),\u201d which had a successful test flight in September of 2018.<\/p>\n Another thing to consider is the entry corridor, which is the region of the atmosphere a spacecraft enters to reach its desired destination. The Theoretical Corridor Width (TCW) quantifies the width of the corridor, and must be large enough to accommodate a safe landing, accounting for atmospheric uncertainties, and also provide sufficient safety margin for mission success even in limiting scenarios, such as combination of shallow entry and thin atmosphere.<\/p>\n As a general rule of thumb, Girija said, lift modulation provides nearly twice the available entry corridor width as drag modulation, and can thus accommodate larger atmospheric uncertainties. The main difference is that while drag modulation offers somewhat less control, it is more affordable for small missions (less than $50 million) while lifting aeroshells typically cost several hundreds of millions of dollars.<\/p>\n Girija says that even though the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan are well-characterized for engineering purposes, there can be standard density variations of up to 50%, plus or minus. With no in-situ data, the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune are not as well characterized, but the GRAM model for them provides a standard deviation variation of plus or minus 30%. An understanding of the expected uncertainties in the density profile is of great importance to assess the risk it poses to a future mission.<\/p>\n The GRAM model uses available in-situ and remote sensing measurements and provides an \u201cengineering model for the planetary atmospheres,\u201d Girija said. \u201cFor planets such as Mars and Venus, there is a lot of data (both in situ and remote sensing) and the models are considered quite reliable for preliminary engineering design. For Uranus and Neptune, there is no in-situ data available and the models are based solely on remote sensing observations during the Voyager flyby.\u201d<\/p>\n But there is great diversity in the physical structure and chemical composition of the atmospheric layers of the planets in our solar system, from the \u201chot thick Venusian CO2 atmosphere to the cold icy H2-He atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune,\u201d writes Girija, adding that measurements such as the noble gas abundances and isotopic ratios in these atmospheres are not only critical any aerobraking operations, but also to our understanding of the origin, formation, and evolution of the Solar System.<\/p>\n For Venus\u2019 thick atmosphere, aerocapture using its atmosphere has been shown to be feasible using both lift and drag modulation. However, the large heating rates at Venus make lift modulation not as desirable. Girija says that drag modulation with its lower heating rate particularly makes it attractive for small satellite orbit insertion.<\/p>\n Mars has a relatively thin atmosphere compared to the Earth, but several missions have successfully used aerocapture for both orbit insertion and landing. Because of the numerous mission to Mars, the Martian atmosphere is well understood, but also has relatively large seasonal variations compared to Venus, and associated uncertainties particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere.<\/p>\n However, compared to Venus, the low gravity and the extended atmosphere provide larger TCW at Mars (by a factor of 2), and Girija says the larger atmospheric uncertainties can easily be accommodated. The \u201csweet spot\u201d deceleration at Mars is a band of atmosphere between 50\u201380 km in altitude, where most of the deceleration occurs for aerocapture at Mars. For any mission to the Red Planet, the entry proposal needs to have adequate margin for two limiting scenarios: shallow entry and thin atmosphere, and thick atmosphere and steep entry.<\/p>\n Saturn\u2019s largest moon Titan is the only moon in our Solar System with an atmosphere. With surface liquids and its Earth-like terrain, Titan is an enticing world to study with a future mission. Girija says that Titan\u2019s low gravity and extended thick atmosphere make it the ideal destination for aerocapture, and these conditions provide the largest corridor width of any destination in our Solar System. Since its small size makes it particularly difficult to insert orbiters using conventional propulsion, aerocapture is a promising alternative for future missions that might perform global mapping of Titan\u2019s surface and its lakes and seas. We do have the in-situ data from the Huygens lander, so Girija says that Titan\u2019s density profile is fairly well constrained, with a few exceptions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe uncertainty in the density profile increases with altitude, reaches a maximum of about 40% near 100 km above the surface and then decreases,\u201d Girija writes. \u201cIt is not clear this is an artifact of the assumptions used in the model, or indeed a real effect.\u201d<\/p>\n The altitude band of 300\u2013450 km is where most of the deceleration occurs for aerocapture at Titan, with a density variation of about 30%, which is comparable to Venus. Girija says that although Venus\u2019 and Titan\u2019s atmosphere are quite different in terms of their temperature (737K vs 94K) and chemistry (CO2 vs N2), they share several physical similarities, such as both being relatively thick, super-rotating atmospheres with the planetary body rotating slowly and significant greenhouse warming in the lower troposphere.<\/p>\n The ice giants Uranus and Neptune are the last class of planets yet to be explored using orbiter spacecraft. Even though their distance from Earth presents significant mission design challenges, the 2023-2032 Planetary Science Decadal Survey has identified a Uranus Orbiter and Probe as the top priority for a flagship mission in the next decade.<\/p>\n While Uranus and Neptune are both equally compelling scientifically, Girija says that Uranus is less demanding from a mission design perspective with propulsive insertion. \u201cAerocapture has been shown to be strongly enhancing to enabling technology for ice giant missions,\u201d he writes. \u201cWith aerocapture, both Uranus and Neptune would be equally accessible. Recent studies have shown that aerocapture enables significantly shorter flight times to Uranus than possible with propulsive insertion, especially with new high energy launch vehicles.\u201d<\/p>\n For both Uranus and Neptune, the GRAM suite provides a density variation of approximately 30% for the \u201crelevant altitude ranges which is considered an optimistic estimate,\u201d Girija writes. \u201cUntil in-situ data from an atmospheric probe becomes available, a more conservative global min-max estimate is recommended to accommodate the worst-case scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n The altitude range of 200\u2013400 km is the area where aerocapture would be most effective and Girija says the expected density variation of 30% \u201cmust be taken as an \u2018optimistic\u2019 estimate until in-situ data becomes available. The actual uncertainty may be much higher.\u201d<\/p>\n Girija has written another paper comparing lift and drag modulation for ice giant missions, here: <\/p>\n Overall, Girija says, the aerocapture mission design \u201cmust account for the expected atmospheric uncertainties to assure the guidance scheme can successfully steer the vehicle to the desired\u201d location in the atmosphere or a landing. One of the most important parts of the mission design is the selection of the target entry flight path angle.<\/p>\n Read more details about each planet\u2019s aerocapture capabilities at Girija\u2019s paper, published as a pre-print on arXiv.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/msl20111005_PIA14758_MSL_BPDV_4-br2.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/aerocapture.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/planetary-atmospheres.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Venus-atmosphere-density.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Mars-atmosphere-density.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.universetoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Uranus-density.jpg\")
Like this:<\/h3>\n