More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (28 Jan 2018 01:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (28 Jan 2018 02:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Thomas Jones-Low (28 Jan 2018 02:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (28 Jan 2018 02:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (28 Jan 2018 03:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Phil Pugliese (28 Jan 2018 19:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Kelly St. Clair (28 Jan 2018 19:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Phil Pugliese (28 Jan 2018 20:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Douglas Berry (29 Jan 2018 00:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Edward Swatschek (28 Jan 2018 11:41 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Ashley Greenall (28 Jan 2018 14:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Jim Catchpole (28 Jan 2018 15:08 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (28 Jan 2018 03:08 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Graham Donald (29 Jan 2018 12:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Kelly St. Clair (29 Jan 2018 15:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Graham Donald (30 Jan 2018 00:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (30 Jan 2018 05:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Graham Donald (30 Jan 2018 10:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (30 Jan 2018 13:41 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (30 Jan 2018 22:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (31 Jan 2018 00:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (31 Jan 2018 01:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (31 Jan 2018 01:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (31 Jan 2018 05:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (31 Jan 2018 05:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (30 Jan 2018 22:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (31 Jan 2018 00:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (31 Jan 2018 05:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (31 Jan 2018 09:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Thomas Jones-Low (31 Jan 2018 13:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Bruce Johnson (31 Jan 2018 19:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Bruce Johnson (31 Jan 2018 20:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (31 Jan 2018 22:46 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Rupert Boleyn (29 Jan 2018 02:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (29 Jan 2018 02:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Rupert Boleyn (29 Jan 2018 03:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (29 Jan 2018 03:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Kurt Feltenberger (29 Jan 2018 03:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (29 Jan 2018 03:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Kurt Feltenberger (29 Jan 2018 03:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Douglas Berry (29 Jan 2018 05:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (29 Jan 2018 06:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Kurt Feltenberger (29 Jan 2018 06:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche (29 Jan 2018 07:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Tim (29 Jan 2018 08:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Evyn MacDude (29 Jan 2018 03:33 UTC)

Re: [TML] More meteoric reentry thoughts Caleuche 31 Jan 2018 01:38 UTC

That was a good catch!

When I updated the air friction function to add mass as a parameter, I inadvertently updated the equation using that function with the older version of the function, so whatever was still in the kernel was the mass used.

Hopefully this looks more reasonable:
First, from entry interface to touchdown:
https://i.imgur.com/B9g1ivF.png

then, the data:
https://i.imgur.com/1da7Jr4.png

Peak dynamic pressure is now very low.

​

​

-------- Original Message --------
 On January 30, 2018 4:40 PM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 05:07:40PM -0500, Caleuche wrote:
>>I mistakenly ran the model with 1.4 meters radius rather than 1.4
>> meters diameter, but otherwise modeled a sphere with radius 1.4
>> meters, subsonic drag coefficient 0.47 and transsonic drag
>> coefficient 0.55, and supersonic drag coefficient 0.47 again (I need
>> to fix that, spheres have very high supersonic drag coefficients),
>> mass was modeled to be 104 kg for the sphere and 100 kg for the
>> astronaut+spacesuit (the same as the traveller reentry kit) but
>> going on with it:
>>Here is the plot from entry interface to touchdown:
>>https://i.imgur.com/APikZcR.png
>>And some of the extracted data:
>>https://i.imgur.com/zdxUmZG.png
>>Peak acceleration is just over 8g at around 20,000 meters altitude,
>> and dynamic pressure peaks at that time too, at around 650 kPa
>>
> That's not possible.  Drag = dynamic pressure * coefficient * area, so
> with your figures the drag should be 2.2 MN, acting on a 204 kg object
> thus yielding a deceleration of 1100 gee.  If you're getting 8 gee,
> then you must be using a mass of 28 tonnes (or some similarly far-out
> number elsewhere in the calculation).
>
> A chunk of solid rock of the same size might have a mass of 28 tonnes,
> and it would be physically reasonable for it to get down to 20 km
> altitude before slowing significantly, but an astronaut in a bubble
> won't.
>
>
> - Tim
>
>The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
>http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=0og3DHdoRHgL9lI7peOXYWnk6UF4c1zE
>