MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072900561 · doi:10.2514/6.2004-2279

Computational Aerodynamics of Shuttle Orbiter Damage Scenarios in Support of the Columbia Accident Investigation

2004· article· en· W2072900561 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Bibb, Ramadas K. Prabhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsOrbiterAerodynamicsAeronauticsAerospace engineeringSpace ShuttleComputer scienceAccident (philosophy)Environmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In support of the Columbia Accident Investigation, inviscid computations of the aerodynamic characteristics for various Shuttle Orbiter damage scenarios were performed using the Felisa unstructured CFD solver. Computed delta aerodynamics were compared with the reconstructed delta aerodynamics in order to postulate a progression of damage through the flight trajectory. By performing computations at hypervelocity flight and CF4 tunnel conditions, a bridge was provided between wind tunnel testing in Langley’s 20-Inch CF4 facility and the flight environment experienced by Columbia during re-entry. The rapid modeling capability of the unstructured methodology allowed the computational effort to keep pace with the wind tunnel and, at times, guide the wind tunnel efforts. These computations provided a detailed view of the flowfield characteristics and the contribution of orbiter components (such as the vertical tail and wing) to aerodynamic forces and moments that were unavailable from wind tunnel testing. The damage scenarios are grouped into three categories. Initially, single and multiple missing full RCC panels were analyzed to determine the effect of damage location and magnitude on the aerodynamics. Next is a series of cases with progressive damage, increasing in severity, in the region of RCC panel 9. The final group is a set of wing leading edge and windward surface deformations that model possible structural deformation of the wing skin due to internal heating of the wing structure. By matching the aerodynamics from selected damage scenarios to the reconstructed flight aerodynamics, a progression of damage that is consistent with the flight data, debris forensics, and wind tunnel data is postulated. Nomenclature bref Reference length for rolling and yawing moments C Force or moment coefficient, force normalized by 1 and rolling and yawing moments by 1 cref Reference length for pitching moment

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207