I've been getting a lot of questions about the aerodynamic skirt and grids on the Boeing Starliner OFT-2 configuration
I wanted to take some time and look into it, but after doing some digging I feel like I have a much better idea of what's going on
THREAD...
First, let's all get on the same page about what we are talking about. If it wasn't obvious from the first image, the questions revolve around a couple changes to the OML of the vehicle near Starliner: 1) an aerodynamic skirt; 2) a series of black "grids"
Regarding the need for the aero skirt, after some reading I'm pretty confident I can explain this
For the grid structure, it's a bit less clear but I will make some educated guesses
So let's start with the aero skirt...
This story came out in Aug. 2016 (HT @Cosmic_Andrew1 for sharing) describing some modifications made to the Starliner configuration
There were some enlightening quotes from Chris Ferguson referring to "non-linear aerodynamic loads" behind the vehicle
My first thought was to try to dig up some wind tunnel data. Alas, it is unsurprisingly not published (at least not that I could find). It's highly likely we never see it.
But words like "non-linear loads" are often code for "shock waves"
NASA Technical Reports Server time...
I say this a lot but it is so true, predictable, and hilarious to me: everything we do in this field is already somewhere on DTIC and/or the NASA Technical Reports Server
The issue, which was more-or-less understood 60 years ago, is that if you use a "hammerhead" launch vehicle you can experience some very large unsteady loads due to shock waves at transonic speeds. The geometry makes a huge difference
The key word here is "hammerhead" and if you type something like "hammerhead launch vehicle" into Google scholar you can read papers on this all day
The appeal of this configuration is you can mount a payload with a larger diameter than your rocket
At transonic speeds (M ~0.7-1.3) you get a shock structure that can form just downstream of your capsule. This shock interacts with the growing boundary layer/separated flow & oscillates rapidly. This produces large pressure loads
NASA looked at how geometry impacts the pressure loading in a series of tests ~30 years ago
The take-away: if you have a low L/D for your hammerhead (it's too stubby) you can get some very elevated pressure loads right behind your capsule. Original Starliner had L/D ~ 0.4
Does that L/D = 1.2 configuration look familiar? Also notice that most "hammerhead" vehicles have a longer fairing section? This is why.
Compare to the original Starliner mockups and revisit the old wind tunnel data, it's not surprising there were acoustic loading issues
I'm sure NASA/ULA/Boeing had plenty of super smart people that were familiar w these design considerations. They saw the issue w the pressure loading & I imagine knew right away that the aero skirt would be a quick fix. Not aesthetically pleasing to some but that's why it's there
On to part 2, the "grid fin" looking feature
As I said, I'm not quite as confident on the reasoning but I have some guesses...
@torybruno answered this a while back but let's try to decipher the meaning
He mentions that the feature is there to manage the location of the shock attach point. That has me thinking...
One thing that happens with these oscillating shock waves on flat surfaces like this is that they have a way of moving around quite a bit and covering a lot of ground. That's not great. So it's possible this feature is there mainly to force the shock to stay in ~the same spot
This would also provide some symmetry to the shock structure, which would otherwise likely oscillate in different ways in the axial direction (as you go around the vehicle)
The feature could also in part be serving to trip the boundary layer from a laminar/transitional state to ensure it is fully turbulent. This would help manage flow separation (keep flow attached longer) and also make the shock interaction a bit more predictable
You also can see shocks that impinge further downstream (on the rocket body) and cause similar problems. The grid structure might be helping to manage how that feature behaves web.archive.org/web/2018072410…
If i'm off-base on any of this, @torybruno please jump in to correct me! A couple of WAGs mixed in here...
Last thing, I found some other cool images that I didn't end up using in the thread, but just wanted to share anyway
Aside from the fact that you can't just wave a wand and get to Mars in 3 years (there's only one more launch window between now and then: Q4 2026)
You simply CANNOT close NASA Ames
That site has a concentration of some of the most in-demand test infrastructure in the world. Stuff we (sadly) will probably never build again. Would set US defense and space testing capability back decades just to score some political points (California BAD! NASA engineers LAZY!)
Take for example the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Wind Tunnel Complex
Comprised of the two largest wind tunnels in the world. Basically the only places you can test aircraft at full scale
40 ft x 80 ft and 80 ft x 120 ft wind tunnels. Absolutely INSANE
There's the arc jet complex
This is really the best way we have to test thermal protection materials for space and defense applications
Wanna go to Mars? You need these
There are fewer than 10 high-throughput arc jets in the US. Ames has 4
So, if I understand correctly, it sounds like GE has successfully tested a turbine-based combined-cycle engine that incorporates: 1) gas turbine; 2) rotating detonation engine; 3) ramjet; 4) scramjet 🤯
As we approach what may be a historic Starship flight test, this Reuters report is really, really bad
No excuses: as arguably the number one launch provider *in the world* the safety culture at SpaceX has to be better. They should be setting the standard (in a good way)
If we are going to continue giving them billions annually in taxpayer dollars, they can’t keep treating workers like disposable meat puppets
And yes before you ask these numbers are much worse than industry averages
This is an absolutely total systematic failure that goes beyond SpaceX—NASA has some explaining to do about how they allowed SpaceX to operate in their own backyard allowing a > 20% injury rate
If you're ever frustrated by someone with a PhD acting like a know-it-all outside their niche field of study, just remember that Albert Einstein tried to design an airfoil but it performed so poorly during testing it's flight characteristics were compared to a "pregnant duck"
HT to @milan_tomicc for reminding me of this the other day
For a bit more technical insight, bottom line is that Einstein designed this entirely using Bernoulli theory.
Stall at 12deg AoA @ 92 L/D
He later confessed he was "ashamed" and "this is what can happen to a man that thinks a lot but reads little"
Am I being unreasonable in thinking that "clearing the launch pad" (that everyone knew would be destroyed) is a bit of a low bar for arguably the most successful launch company *ever*?
There are tons of insanely smart, hard-working, talented people there
NASA needs Starship to put boots on the moon
So I expect more than what we got yesterday
When some brand new startup or a university rocket club sends their rocket into a death spiral at T+4min we all pat them on the back and say "space is hard" and "you'll figure it out"
I hold SpaceX (and NASA) to a much higher standard. SpaceX is better than this. It wasn't ready