Conference PaperPDF Available

Towards Utilization of Autorotation in Interplanetary Exploration on the example of Venus

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Humanity is striving to be an interplanetary species more than ever before. Therefore, not only launching but also landing is a key capability for any future spacecraft. Right now, the state of the art is either landing by parachute or a propulsive approach. Parachutes are hardly ever reused, hence not a good choice for reusable vehicles. Propulsive landings do provide reusability but demand fuel and oxidizer, which might only be safe to use for a limited amount of time, e.g. due to temperature constraints. A viable solution that combines controllability, reusability and does not require any fuel is available in the form of autorotation. This is not a new technology in itself. Helicopters use it for landing in case of an engine failure. However, in the context of space flight, this technology has hardly been investigated. This paper shall present a number of possibilities of theoretical utilization of an autorotation system for a Venus mission. The focus is on a number of different sized vehicles with different purposes that utilize autorotation. Furthermore the vehicles will be evaluated upon their deployment method. A mission can be a small atmospheric probe and deployed by a bigger mission or it can be a lander with direct re-entry. It is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of autorotation in these different scenarios. Furthermore, comparison of the viability of the missions upon different performance parameters is made. This includes TRL, overall complexity and especially in comparison with other decelerators. The goal is to create a baseline. It shows where missions might be able to benefit by the utilization of autorotation. The possible limits of the technology are also outlined in this paper.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 INTRODUCTION
IAC–22–D1,1,7,x68004
Towards Utilization of Autorotation in Interplanetary Exploration on the example of Venus
Clemens Rieglera*, Hakan Kayalb
aJMU W¨
urzburg, Germany, clemens.riegler@uni-wuerzburg.de
bJMU W¨
urzburg, Germany, hakan.kayal@uni-wuerzburg.de
* Corresponding Author
Abstract
Humanity is striving to be an interplanetary species more than ever before. Therefore, not only launching but also
landing is a key capability for any future spacecraft. Right now, the state of the art is either landing by parachute or
a propulsive approach. Parachutes are hardly ever reused, hence not a good choice for reusable vehicles. Propulsive
landings do provide reusability but demand fuel and oxidizer, which might only be safe to use for a limited amount
of time, e.g. due to temperature constraints. A viable solution that combines controllability, reusability and does
not require any fuel is available in the form of autorotation. This is not a new technology in itself. Helicopters use
it for landing in case of an engine failure. However, in the context of space flight, this technology has hardly been
investigated. This paper shall present a number of possibilities of theoretical utilization of an autorotation system for
a Venus mission. The focus is on a number of different sized vehicles with different purposes that utilize autorotation.
Furthermore the vehicles will be evaluated upon their deployment method. A mission can be a small atmospheric
probe and deployed by a bigger mission or it can be a lander with direct re-entry. It is important to understand the
advantages and disadvantages of autorotation in these different scenarios. Furthermore, comparison of the viability of
the missions upon different performance parameters is made. This includes TRL, overall complexity and especially in
comparison with other decelerators. The goal is to create a baseline. It shows where missions might be able to benefit
by the utilization of autorotation. The possible limits of the technology are also outlined in this paper.
Keywords: Autorotation, Landing, Decelerator, Descent, EDL, Venus
Abbreviations
AuroV - Autorotation Vehicle
ESA - European Space Agency
GPS - Global Positioning System
JMU - Julius Maximilian University
LEO - Low Earth Orbit
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
TPS - Thermal Protection System
TRL - Technology Readiness Level
USHST - United States Helicopter Safety Team
USPA - United States Parachute Association
VEXAG - Venus Exploration Analysis Group
VLF - Venus Life Finder
1. Introduction
Landings will be a key capability for spacecraft in the
future. In this paper we suggest autorotation as a alterna-
tive to classic decelerators. The focus will be on Venus
due to its especially favourable conditions. A number of
missions will be introduced
In this section, we introduce the concept of Autorota-
tion for other Planets. It is explained why Venus is espe-
cially interesting for Autorotation flight and landing. Ad-
ditionally, a small comparison of the earthbound heritage
of parachutes and rotor systems shall be made. Finally,
typical mission types for Venus will be shortly introduced
and discussed.
1.1 Autorotation on Venus
Venus is known for its very harsh environment. Acidic
clouds, extremely high temperatures, and immense pres-
sures create a hostile environment. However, the atmo-
sphere is extremely dense with roughly 65 kg
m3[1]. Com-
bined with lower winds, especially below the cloud layer
this creates favourable conditions for flight [2]. This is
depicted in Figure 1.
JMU W¨
urzburg and W¨
uSpace are not the first to pro-
pose lifting vehicles for Venus. Several studies have sug-
gested fixed-wing aircraft [3, 4, 5]. Helicopter-like ro-
torcraft, however, are investigated rarely, with the most
notable work by Yount et al. [6]. Nevertheless, we be-
lieve they have some benefits for parachutes and propul-
sion systems. A qualitative overview of these benefits and
capabilities can be seen in Table 1.
1
1.2 Rotorcraft and Autorotation vs. Parachutes 1 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1. Wind speed in different altitudes of the Venusian
atmosphere by Lang [2]. The dashed lines represent mini-
mum and maximum speeds. Furthermore the cloud layers
are also depicted.
1.2 Rotorcraft and Autorotation vs. Parachutes
The exciting new space race is accelerating more and
more. Even quite literally, the market is flooded with start-
ups aiming to launch payloads to LEO and beyond. How-
ever, decelerator technologies are often not regarded. We
want to contribute to a greater spectrum of decelerators
by proposing autorotation. It can be a viable alternative to
parachutes and propulsion systems. We would even like
to argue that it has the greatest heritage of all these three
technologies.
A comparison of yearly flight hours of parachutes
versus helicopters shines light on the maturity. Rocket
propulsion systems are not regraded in this comparison as
their usage is not standard on earth. First of all, the USPA
reports that for 2018, roughly 3.3 million skydives [7]. A
skydive takes 10 minutes as an optimistic estimate. This
led to roughly 550.000 Parachute flight hours in the US
in 2018. The USHST estimates yearly flight hours of He-
licopters at roughly 3 Million. However, more accurate
data is available in their reports. Looking at their 2018
safety report, USHST states that a total of 121 accidents
occurred [8]. They also state that this gives roughly 3.57
Accidents per 100.000 flight hours. Thus, resulting in a
flight time of 3.39Mio hours per year. It results in six
- AuroV Parachute Propulsion
Mass medium low high
Fuel demand no no yes
Controlable yes limited yes
Reusable yes limited yes
Atmosphere yes yes no
Pressurized no no yes
Table 1. Qualitative comparison of Autorotation with
other typical decelerators on key parameters
times more flight hours for helicopters than skydivers and
their parachutes.
This estimate disregards several factors, like parachute
airdrops and the entire model helicopter scene. Never-
theless, it maps the two largest groups of each category
against each other. Therefore, we are confident that this
estimate indicates the rotor systems’ maturity compared
to parachutes.
Rotor systems, typically used in helicopters, can per-
form autorotation. Ingenuity is already proving that rotor-
craft can fly on other planets [9]. We want to build upon
this foundation and introduce another use case for these
systems in interplanetary exploration.
1.3 State of the Art
The idea of autorotation for interplanetary exploration
is not new. Prototypes and designs have been investigated
for a long time. Diaz et al. have provided a historical
overview of the design studies and prototypes that have
been built [10]. In Figure 2 a rough sketch of a timeline
including images of autorotation vehicle concepts is de-
picted. This includes prototypes like AMDL [11] and AR-
MADA [12] designed as demonstrators for Mars in 2009.
Furthermore, the endeavors by Kaman Aerospace are in-
cluded that led to the construction of the KRC-6 [13].
Among other options, all are further outlined in the very
recommended work of Diaz et al. [10].
However, since 2013, when their work was written,
further developments have been made. At JMU the
Projects Daedalus 1 [14, 15] and Daedalus 2 [16] were im-
plemented. These tested two autorotation vehicles named
SpaceSeed v1 and v2, respectively. Images of the two ve-
hicles can be seen in Figure 3. For reference, v1 has a
rotor radius of roughly 35cm, while v2 has a rotor radius
of 50cm.
The first version was launched and successfully recov-
ered in 2019. In 2022 the second version was scheduled to
launch. However, it was delayed to 2023 due to political
reasons. While version one was entirely passive, version
two features pitch control and altitude sensors to deceler-
ate to a manageable landing speed above the surface.
2
1.4 Possible Missions 2 MISSION SCENARIOS
1960 1965 1970
1995 2000 2005 2010
Fig. 12 Chronology from different efforts covered in this review.
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on September 16, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-5361
Fig. 2. Timeline of Autorotation Prototypes. Image by Diaz et al. [10]
Fig. 3. On the Left, a render of the SpaceSeed v2 is de-
picted. On the right the flight hardware of the SpaceSeed
v1 can be seen.
1.4 Possible Missions
With the previous comparison in Table 1, we are confi-
dent that an investigation of specific mission scenarios for
Venus Autorotation Vehicles (AuroV) is necessary. There
is a vast array of missions possible. Smaller deployables
like sondes dropped from balloons, as suggest in the VLF
[17] and VEV [18, 19] studies are possible uses for Au-
roVs. These would be considered small probes. Vehi-
cles the size of DaVinci [20] or Pioneers Large Probe
[21] could utilize Autorotation to their advantage. These
would be considered large probes. The Venera program
has some comparatively large landers like Venera 12, and
13 [22]. These would be considered Landers. Other stud-
ies like Venera-D [23, 24] and VEXAG [25, 26] ask for
surface sample return missions. These would be consid-
ered Landers, including sample returns.
A large spectrum of vehicles is covered, from the rel-
atively low complexity of small probes to large landers
with sample return capability. These vehicles and possi-
ble use cases shall be outlined in the following sections.
The mission scenarios will then be compared to under-
stand possible TRL differences and which are viable in
the short term.
2. Mission Scenarios
In the following subsections, several mission scenar-
ios will be outlined. Their benefits and constraints are
highlighted. Possible complexities and thus technological
issues are discussed. Furthermore, an exemplary mission
envelope will be suggested and visualized. The aim is to
create a first impression of how such missions could be
designed. Ultimately this leads up to a comparison in the
next section.
3
2.1 Small Probe 2 MISSION SCENARIOS
2.1 Small Probe
Vehicles with masses well below 100kg could accom-
pany a mission as a secondary payload. Studies like VFL
[17] and VEV [18, 19] suggest balloons that carry smaller
deployables. VEXAG asks for this in their Technical and
Scientific Goals Whitepapers [25, 26]. Smaller probes
can perform simpler atmospheric science experiments and
might even be able to take high resolution images of the
surface. In the following paragraph, a possible mission
scenario will be briefly explored.
2.1.1 Mission Envelope - Small AuroV
A small probe mission is considered to be most vi-
able as a balloon deployable. Balloon missions are being
pushed in the scientific community. Most of them suggest
the use of more miniature probes as a way to explore the
deeper parts of the atmosphere [17, 18, 19]. Autorotation
can be especially useful for payloads that operate below
the cloud layer. The winds significantly decrease after the
clouds and haze. In this region, an AuroV could glide and
allow a camera to take pictures of the surface. Mapping
the region, scouting for landing sites, and other scientific
objectives could be achieved. Small AuroVs are not ex-
pected to be able to land. AuroV can be utilized as a glider
in this use case. Especially with the dense atmosphere on
Venus, long flight times can be achieved. In Figure 4, an
exemplary flight envelope is depicted.
Balloon
Science Plattform
~60km
~30km
Wing Retracted Drop-
Phase
Wing Deployment in flight conditions
(lower wind speeds)
Controlled Flight until LOS
Experiment Phase
Ground Level
Small AuroVs
Fig. 4. Exemplary Mission Envelope of a small probe Au-
roV
2.1.2 Summary - Small AuroV
Small AuroVs could substantially contribute to the out-
come of a bigger mission. They can enter deeper parts of
the atmosphere without requiring the primary mission to
be there. Any aerial platform like a balloon or Venus high-
altitude aircraft can carry and deploy small AuroVs. The
limiting factor is the size. This will most likely mean two
things. There will be less scientific output due to limited
payload mass. A small AuroV is unlikely to be utilized as
a lander and is more viable as a glider.
2.2 Large Probe
Missions like DaVinci+ [20] and the Large Pioneer
Probe [21] are considered to be large atmospheric probes.
Generally speaking, they have a mass of around 300kg.
However, this is not a hard requirement. They investi-
gated the atmosphere, took images of the surface, and
more. Contrary to the previously mentioned small probes
in 2.1, they are usually deployed through direct entry. At-
mospheric probes usually are not built to withstand impact
or land in the first place. This is what distinguishes them
from a typical lander-type mission.
2.2.1 Mission Envelope - Large AuroV
A large AuroV can achieve more than its smaller coun-
terpart. However, it will also need to be more capable.
Like the previously mentioned missions, a Large AuroV
must withstand re-entry. This has obvious design impli-
cations for the vehicle. However, this is not an unsolvable
problem. A rotor might also be beneficial here. Earlier
works by Barzda [27] suggest that rotor blades can be de-
ployed at speeds up to Mach 3. This would do away with
a drogue chute. Furthermore, a lower deceleration profile
is suggested by Robinson et al. [13]. Therefore, showing
another possible advantage of AuroVs.
After Reentry, the large AuroV in practice is not differ-
ent from a small AuroV. It will fly through the atmosphere
and choose a flight profile to fulfill its mission goals. As
mentioned previously, landing is not planned for these ve-
hicles. However, a large AuroV can be used to test landing
procedures and prepare for future lander missions. Never-
theless, in accordance with the typical atmospheric probe
mission, no other science is planned upon ground contact.
In Figure 5, an exemplary flight envelope is depicted.
2.2.2 Summary - Large AuroV
A large AuroV would realize what the state of the art
Venus Entry Probes do today. However, Autorotation can
bring some advantages with it. Deceleration profiles could
be smoother and thus less straining on instruments. Its
larger size has apparent advantages over the small AuroV
design. However, Re-entry is something that has to be
taken care of compared to the smaller Variant. A large
4
2.3 Lander 2 MISSION SCENARIOS
~60km
~30km
Wing Retracted Drop-
Phase
Wing Deployment below 30km
(Winds low enough for flight)
Experiments start
Furhter Experiments until
LOS
Ground Level
Heatshield Jetison
Fig. 5. Exemplary Mission Envelope of a large probe Au-
roV
AuroV could and should test landing procedures to pre-
pare for AuroV Landers. A large AuroV can be a logical
next step after a successful DaVinci+ Mission.
2.3 Lander
In the past, the Venera program brought several lan-
ders to Venus [22]. While these landers did not last very
long, they gathered valuable data. Future landers will
have similar issues, so the scientific yield should be max-
imized in a short amount of time. VEXAG asks for pin-
point landing capability to achieve this [26]. Contrary to
parachutes, AuroVs can do that, as shown daily on earth
by helicopters. Thus autorotation can give us a clear path
towards precise landing and ground hazard avoidance.
2.3.1 Mission Envelope - AuroV Lander
The Venera Landers used Parachutes and drag skirts to
decelerate [6, 23]. Due to the dense atmosphere on Venus,
this was a good way to descend passively. However, due
to the short operating duration on the surface, the choice
of landing sites could be important for the scientific out-
come. Choice is one thing, delivery of the payload to
this spot is a whole new story. Parachutes and drag skirts
will not be able to achieve this. Propulsion can, however,
the environmental conditions make it hard to store propel-
lant at working temperatures and pressures. Autorotation
takes advantage of the environment and uses the atmo-
sphere to steer and land. Thus an AuroV Lander is an
excellent alternative to propulsive Landers. It is clear that
AuroV Landers also need to handle re-entry and descent,
just like the Large AuroV in Section 2.2. Furthermore,
landing legs need to be added and designed with respect
to scientific payloads that want to operate at or interact
with the surface. An exemplary mission envelope for Au-
roV Landers can be seen in Figure 6.
~60km
~30km
Wing Retracted Drop-
Phase
Wing Deployment below 30km
(Winds low enough for flight)
Landing, Start of main
Experiments
Ground Level
Heatshield Jetison
Fig. 6. Exemplary Mission Envelope of an AuroV Lander
5
2.4 Surface Sample return 3 COMPARISON
2.3.2 Summary - AuroV Lander
When comparing autorotation with other deceleration
methods, one thing becomes clear. It is a viable alterna-
tive to other options. The core of this is visible in Table
1. VEXAG and other scientists also ask for this capabil-
ity. The possibility of hazard avoidance plays a vital role
as well. This is a mid to long-term mission. Landings on
Venus are complicated, and AuroVs need at least one pre-
vious technology demonstration to gather more data about
the technology.
2.4 Surface Sample return
Sample Return missions are one of the scientifically
most exciting mission types. Venus makes no difference
here. However, several missions suggest an atmospheric
sample return, as VLF does [17]. Undoubtedly, these are
relevant and interesting missions. However, no demand
for autorotation exists for these types of sample returns.
More interesting for AuroVs are surface sample returns.
2.4.1 Mission Envelope - Sample Return
A surface sample return mission faces all difficulties a
lander mission has. TheseThese challenges were outlined
in section 2.3. For Venus, these sample returns are tricky.
Compared to similar missions like Mars Sample Return
[28], or the proposed CALATHUS mission to Ceres [29]
one clear difference is the atmosphere. A return vehicle
has to go up through the highly dense atmosphere, burn-
ing much fuel just to overcome friction and air resistance.
The atmosphere can be used to solve this problem with
a rotor system. During landing, like with the classical
lander, the rotor system performs autorotation and lands
the spacecraft. After a sample has been collected, the as-
cent is the next step. A rotor system, including an elec-
tric motor, could act as an airborne first stage. Depending
on the system’s mass, motorization, and energy storage, a
few kilometers can be overcome, drastically reducing the
amount of fuel needed to launch. Crucially, the deceler-
ator can also be used as ascend accelerator. A rotor sys-
tem in this configuration shows an exciting alternative to
propulsion again. Vehicles like these could be arranged in
a multi-rotor configuration. This takes inspiration from
the planned Dragon Fly mission to Titan [30] and the
pitch-controlled Mars Science Helicopter [31]. Figure 7
shows an exemplary mission envelope for such a mission.
2.4.2 Summary - Sample Return
AuroVs with the capability to ascend show an alterna-
tive to propulsion. This can massively reduce the mass of
a mission to a point where it begins to be possible in the
first place. Such a mission is one of the most complexes to
be implemented. Preceding technology demonstrators are
a must for this mission type. Inheritance from other Mis-
~60km
~30km
Start of Experiments
Experiments, Landing and
Asccent
Ground Level
~90km
Heatshield Jetison
Atmospheric
Science
Re-Entry
Mid Air Launch of
Sample Return
Vehicle
VenusCopter
Fig. 7. Exemplary Mission Envelope of an AuroV Sample
Return vehicle
sions like Mars Science Helicopter [32] and Dragon Fly
[30] could push such a mission. The advantages of decel-
erator and accelerator being the same system is massive.
The possible weight reduction can be mission-defining
and enabling. A rotor system for sample return missions
on Venus is an exciting alternative to traditional systems.
3. Comparison
Previously four exemplary mission scenarios were out-
lined. They shall now be compared against each other.
Furthermore, a recommendation shall be derived upon
which mission(s) should be realized in the near future.
The assessment is based on the previously introduced mis-
sion scenarios. The Results of the Assessment can be
found in Table 2. Performance Indicators where rated
from Neutral o, Promising +and Good ++. Analyzing
the results shows no real surprise. The simplest mission
with the least risks and least complexity is the small Au-
roV. Thus, it is a prime contender for a near-term mis-
sion. Very close is also the Large AuroV. It can build upon
much heritage and not rely on a Balloon or similar carrier
platform. So it might also be an excellent first step toward
more AuroV missions in the future. Contrary, the two lan-
6
REFERENCES
- Small AuroV Large AuroV AuroV lander Sample Return
Mission Type Heritage + ++ + o
Rotorsystem Complexity ++ + + o
Scientific Value + + ++ ++
Near Term Feasibility ++ ++ o o
Cost Estimate ++ + o o
Final Score 8+ 7+ 4+ 2+
Table 2. Qualitative assessment of Individual Venus mission scenarios
der missions show higher complexity and less maturity.
The inherent complexity is shown by VENERA missions
[22], and concepts like AREE [33] Cost is another driv-
ing factor. The higher scientific output, also expected by
VEXAG [25, 26], can not compensate for the immense
complexity of such a system.
The recommendation is to build the small AuroV if a
carrier mission is available. Should such an opportunity
not arise, the Large AuroV is the most promising scenario.
In the spirit of the Pioneer Mission [21], a combination of
both could also be possible.
4. Future Work
Autorotation is a futuristic concept that can enhance
the capability of atmospheric probes and landers. It has
been thought about since the 1960s yet was never imple-
mented beyond prototypes. However, Autorotation in it-
self is not futuristic and is used regularly as an emergency
procedure during landing operations. Rotorcraft also have
a great heritage and gather thousands of flight hours daily.
As shown in Table 1 Autorotation can bridge the tech-
nological gap between parachutes and propulsion and of-
fer a real alternative. Why precise landings are a capa-
bility of such a system, an intermediate step via a small
or large probe should be taken. This can be derived from
Table 2.
However, several challenges must be tackled first to
implement such a mission.
Navigation (No GPS on other planets)
Autonomous Autorotation Control
Autonomous Landing incl. Obstacle Detection and
Avoidance, asked for by VEXAG [25, 26]
Mechanical Analysis for High Blade Loads during
reentry
TPS systems for such Vehicles, possibly ADEPT like
systems [34]
Rotor Storage and Deployment Technologies, like
suggestions by Schuerch [35]
These are the most pressing tasks that come with the
implementation of AuroVs. While these are possible and
no clear show-stopper is available, solutions and imple-
mentations must follow this encouraging outlook. Planets
and Moons with atmospheres can be explored by AuroVs.
Earth bound landers could also feature autorotation tech-
nologies. At Uni W¨
urzburg and W¨
uSpace, we are pushing
forward the development of the SpaceSeed v2 in Project
Daedalus 2. A Ph.D. thesis for the interplanetary use of
this technology is also being conducted at the moment.
However, this can only be the beginning of an exciting
journey with AuroVs to new frontiers.
References
[1] S. Lebonnois and G. Schubert, “The deep atmo-
sphere of venus and the possible role of density-
driven separation of co2 and n2, Nature Geo-
science, vol. 10, pp. 473–477, Jul 2017.
[2] K. R. Lang, “Wind speeds an cloud layers of venus.
https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_
picture.asp?id=1103. Accessed: 2022-03-29.
[3] R. P. Hughes, A. D. Heagle, M. F. Thornton,
J. Bayandor, and A. Matta, “Venusian exploration
flier, AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum.
[4] A. Colozza, “Feasibility of a long duration solar
powered aircraft on venus, in 2nd International En-
ergy Conversion Engineering Conference, p. 5558,
2004.
[5] M. Gammill and M. Hassanalian, “Aerodynamic
analysis of manta ray inspired fixed and flapping-
wing drones for high altitude venus exploration, in
ASCEND 2021, p. 4143, 2021.
7
REFERENCES REFERENCES
[6] L. A. Young, G. Briggs, E. Aiken, and G. Pisanich,
“Rotary-wing decelerators for probe descent
through the atmosphere of venus, tech. rep.,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION MOFFETT FIELD CA
ROTORCRAFT . . . , 2004.
[7] USPA, “Uspa: How safe is skydiving?.
https://uspa.org/Discover/FAQs/Safety#:
~:text=Skydiving%20is%20a%20popular%
20sport,of%2091%20jumps%20per%20member)
.Accessed: 2022-07-28.
[8] USHST, “Ushst: Saftey reports.” https://ushst.
org/reports/. Accessed: 2022-07-28.
[9] J. Balaram, M. Aung, and M. P. Golombek, “The in-
genuity helicopter on the perseverance rover,” Space
Science Reviews, vol. 217, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2021.
[10] R. A. Diaz-Silva, D. Arellano, M. Sarigulklijn, and
N. Sarigul-Klijn, “Rotary decelerators for space-
craft: Historical review and simulation results,
in AIAA SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Sept. 2013.
[11] U. Westerholt, G. B ¨
orchers, Heinz, T. Elfers,
T. Lutz, P. N¨
oding, H. Schmitke, L. Schar-
ringhuasen, H. Sch ¨
onbeck, and S. Waldwein,
Amdl: Auto-rotation in martian descent and land-
ing,” ESA Contract No. 21233/07/NL/CB, 2009.
[12] T. Peters, R. Cadenas, P. Tortora, A. Talamelli,
F. Giulietti, B. Pulvirenti, G. Saggiani, A. Rossetti,
A. Corbelli, and E. Kervendal, Armada: Auto-
rotation in martian descend and landing,” tech. rep.,
ESA, EADS and GMV, 2009.
[13] D. Robinson et al., “Investigation of stored energy
rotors for recovery,” Kaman Aircraft Corporation,
Aeronautical Systems Division TDR-63-745, 1963.
[14] C. Riegler, I. Angelov, F. Kohmann, T. Neumann,
A. Bilican, K. Hofmann, J. Pielucha, A. B¨
ohm,
B. Fischbach, T. Appelt, L. Willand, O. Wizemann,
S. Menninger, J. von Pichowski, J. Staus, E. Hem-
melmann, S. Seisl, C. Fr¨
ohlich, C. Plausonig, and
R. Rath, “Project daedalus, rotor controlled descent
and landing on rexus23, in 2nd Symposium on
Space Educational Activities, p. 278–282, 2018.
[15] C. Riegler, I. Angelov, T. Appelt, A. Bilican,
A. B¨
ohm, B. Fischbach, C. Fr¨
ohlich, J. G. Pielucha,
A. Hartl, E. Hemmelmann, K. Hofmann, P. Kappl,
F. Kohman, S. Menninger, T. Neumann, J. von Pi-
chowski, C. Plausonig, R. Rath, S. Seisl, J. Staus,
L. Willand, O. Wizemann, P. Bergmann, F. Dun-
schen, P. Holzer, U. Wagner, and L. Werner, “Project
Daedalus: Towards Autorotation based Landing and
Descent,” in 71st IAC Proceedings, 2020.
[16] J. Mehringer, L. Werner, C. Riegler, and F. Dun-
schen, “Suborbital autorotation landing demonstra-
tor on rexus 29, in 4th Symposium on Space
Educational Activities, Universitat Polit`
ecnica de
Catalunya, 2022.
[17] S. Seager and J. J. Petkowski, “Venus life finder mis-
sion study, tech. rep., 2021.
[18] A. Phipps, A. Woodroffe, D. Gibbon, A. Cropp,
M. Joshi, P. Alcindor, N. Ghafoor, A. Da, S. Curiel,
J. Ward, M. Sweeting, J. Underwood, S. Lingard,
M. V. D. Berg, P. Falkner, and A. P. C. Uk, “Venus
orbiter and entry probe: An esa technology reference
study, tech. rep.
[19] A. Phipps, A. Woodroffe, D. Gibbon, P. Alcindor,
M. Joshi, A. Da, S. Curiel, J. Ward, M. Sweet-
ing, J. Underwood, S. Lingard, M. V. D. Berg, and
P. Falkner, “Ssc05-v-4 mission and system design of
a venus entry probe and aerobot, tech. rep.
[20] J. B. Garvin, S. A. Getty, G. N. Arney, N. M. John-
son, E. Kohler, K. O. Schwer, M. Sekerak, A. Bar-
tels, R. S. Saylor, V. E. Elliott, et al., “Revealing the
mysteries of venus: The davinci mission,” The Plan-
etary Science Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 117, 2022.
[21] L. Colin, “The pioneer venus program,” Journal
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 85,
no. A13, pp. 7575–7598, 1980.
[22] P. Clark, “The soviet venera programme.,” Journal
of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 38, pp. 74–
93, 1985.
[23] N. Eismont, L. Zasova, A. Simonov, I. Kovalenko,
D. Gorinov, A. Abbakumov, and S. Bober, “Venera-
d mission scenario and trajectory, Solar System Re-
search, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 578–585, 2019.
[24] L. Zasova, “Venera-d: A perspective planetary is-
sion,” in The Eleventh Moscow Solar System Sym-
posium 11M-S3, pp. 376–376, 2020.
[25] J. O’Rourke, A. Treiman, G. Arney, P. Byrne,
L. Carter, D. Dyar, J. Head, C. Gray, S. Kane,
W. Kiefer, K. McGouldrick, L. Montesi, C. Russell,
and S. Smrekar, “Venus goals, objectives, and inves-
tigations,” tech. rep., 2019.
8
REFERENCES REFERENCES
[26] G. Hunter, J. Balcerski, S. Clegg, J. Cutts, C. Gray,
N. Izenberg, N. Johnson, T. Kremic, L. Matthies,
J. O’Rouke, and E. Vnkatapathy, “Venus techplan
2019,” VEXAG Whitepaper, 2019.
[27] J. J. Barzda, “Rotors for recovery., Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 104–109,
1966.
[28] R. Mattingly and L. May, “Mars sample return as a
campaign,” in 2011 Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–
13, IEEE, 2011.
[29] O. Gassot, P. Panicucci, G. Acciarini, H. Bates,
M. Caballero, P. Cambianica, M. Dziewiecki,
Z. Dionnet, F. Enengl, S.-B. Gerig, et al., “Calathus:
A sample-return mission to ceres,” Acta Astronau-
tica, vol. 181, pp. 112–129, 2021.
[30] R. D. Lorenz, E. P. Turtle, J. W. Barnes, M. G.
Trainer, D. S. Adams, K. E. Hibbard, C. Z. Sheldon,
K. Zacny, P. N. Peplowski, D. J. Lawrence, et al.,
“Dragonfly: A rotorcraft lander concept for scien-
tific exploration at titan, Johns Hopkins APL Tech-
nical Digest, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 14, 2018.
[31] J. Delaune, J. Izraelevitz, S. Sirlin, D. Sternberg,
L. Giersch, L. P. Tosi, E. Skliyanskiy, L. Young,
M. Mischna, S. Withrow-Maser, et al., “Mid-air
helicopter delivery at mars using a jetpack, arXiv
preprint arXiv:2203.03704, 2022.
[32] W. Johnson, S. Withrow-Maser, L. Young,
C. Malpica, W. J. Koning, W. Kuang, M. Fehler,
A. Tuano, A. Chan, A. Datta, et al., “Mars science
helicopter conceptual design,” tech. rep., 2020.
[33] B. Alva, R. S. Bhagwat, B. Hartwell, E. Bernard,
and V. Rajesh, “Vibrissae inspired mechanical ob-
stacle avoidance sensor for the venus exploration
rover aree, in AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, p. 2622,
2022.
[34] E. Venkatapathy, K. Hamm, I. Fernandez, J. Arnold,
D. Kinney, B. Laub, A. Makino, M. McGuire, K. Pe-
terson, D. Prabhu, et al., “Adaptive deployable en-
try and placement technology (adept): a feasibility
study for human missions to mars,” in 21st AIAA
Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Con-
ference and Seminar, p. 2608, 2011.
[35] H. SCHUERCH, “Low-density, autorotating wings
for manned re-entry, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, vol. 2, pp. 523–530, July 1965.
9
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging (DAVINCI) mission described herein has been selected for flight to Venus as part of the NASA Discovery Program. DAVINCI will be the first mission to Venus to incorporate science-driven flybys and an instrumented descent sphere into a unified architecture. The anticipated scientific outcome will be a new understanding of the atmosphere, surface, and evolutionary path of Venus as a possibly once-habitable planet and analog to hot terrestrial exoplanets. The primary mission design for DAVINCI as selected features a preferred launch in summer/fall 2029, two flybys in 2030, and descent-sphere atmospheric entry by the end of 2031. The in situ atmospheric descent phase subsequently delivers definitive chemical and isotopic composition of the Venus atmosphere during an atmospheric transect above Alpha Regio. These in situ investigations of the atmosphere and near-infrared (NIR) descent imaging of the surface will complement remote flyby observations of the dynamic atmosphere, cloud deck, and surface NIR emissivity. The overall mission yield will be at least 60 Gbits (compressed) new data about the atmosphere and near surface, as well as the first unique characterization of the deep atmosphere environment and chemistry, including trace gases, key stable isotopes, oxygen fugacity, constraints on local rock compositions, and topography of a tessera.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Current developments in the aerospace industry point towards more frequent interplanetary travel in the future. However, the main focus of developments is on launcher technology, yet the descent of interplanetary probes is of high importance for the success of future missions. Additionally, to the present landing approaches using either a powered descent requiring fuel or a combination of different parachutes, a third method is investigated in this project. The chosen approach is called autorotation and is commonly used in helicopters. When a helicopter suffers a loss of power, it can still land and even choose its landing site without the utilization of an engine. Similar to parachutes, the presented technology can be applied to various atmospheric conditions by modification of rotor and control parameters. Moreover, a rotor in autorotation can provide directional control and thus the choice of a landing site, which is not feasible using a parachute. All these factors make autorotation an interesting option as an entry descent and landing (EDL) technology for interplanetary missions. Our project, Daedalus 2 implements the autorotation landing strategy as part of the REXUS student project campaign under DLR / ESA / SNSA supervision. Since 2018 we are developing the SpaceSeed Mk.2, a technology demonstrator that incorporates a rotor and all necessary technological means to perform an autorotation EDL maneuver from an apogee of 80 km. The mission concept is laid out within the presented paper. This includes the main challenges like miniaturization of the SpaceSeed v2 due to the size constraints of the REXUS rocket or the used sensors for height and position determination. The importance of a technology demonstrator tested on a sounding rocket to prove the feasibility of our presented system is laid out in our publication. Furthermore, the custom development of electrical, mechanical and software sub systems is discussed. Additionally, the planned mission profile will be explained, including flight phases and different activities conducted by the SpaceSeeds during flight. Moreover, the main differences and improvements to Daedalus 1 are being discussed
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The Automaton Rover for Extreme Environments (AREE) is a NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts project to design a rover that can operate for six-months on the surface of Venus. To enable terrain traversal and navigation, AREE must be equipped with a robust obstacle avoidance sensor (OAS), however modern electronics cannot operate in the extreme surface temperature and pressure. Therefore, as part of the NASA "Exploring Hell: Avoiding Obstacles on a Clockwork Rover" challenge, an OAS was developed with an array of mechanical sensors akin to mammalian vibrissae and associated electromagnetic actuators. The obstacle detection method of the OAS can be described as a mechanical and electrical relay system. The first component of this relay is the vibrissae mechanism, an assembly of three mechanical vibrissa that extend from the front of the rover to the Venusian surface to detect obstacles. The second set of components are characterized as trigeminal mechanisms, which function via flexural-based mechanics to convert vibrissa displacement into an electrical signal. An adjacent component defined as the inclination sensor, operates independently from the vibrissae mechanism to monitor rover inclination in reference to gravity. The electromagnetic actuation system is the final component, containing four highly-compact solenoids that actuate pins to relay the detection of an obstacle to AREE. These associated obstacle detection mechanisms function as an OAS capable of operating in the extreme surface conditions of Venus, and which was officially recognized by NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory as one of the top design solutions.
Article
Full-text available
The Ingenuity Helicopter will be deployed from the Perseverance Rover for a 30-sol experimental campaign shortly after the rover lands and is commissioned. We describe the helicopter and the associated Technology Demonstration experiment it will conduct, as well as its role in informing future helicopter missions to Mars. This helicopter will demonstrate, for the first time, autonomous controlled flight of an aircraft in the Mars environment, thus opening up an aerial dimension to Mars exploration. The 1.8 kg1.8~\text{kg}, 1.2 m1.2~\text{m} diameter helicopter, with twin rotors in a counter-rotating co-axial configuration, will help validate aerodynamics, control, navigation and operations concepts for flight in the thin Martian atmosphere. The rover supports a radio link between the helicopter and mission operators on Earth, and information returned from a planned set of five flights, each lasting up to 90 seconds, will inform the development of new Mars helicopter designs for future missions. Such designs in the 4 kg–30 kg4~\text{kg}\text{--}30~\text{kg} range would have the capability to fly many kilometers daily and carry science payloads of 1 kg–5 kg1~\text{kg}\text{--}5~\text{kg}. Small helicopters can be deployed as scouts for future rovers helping to select interesting science targets, determine optimal rover driving routes, and providing contextual high-vantage imagery. Larger craft can be operated in standalone fashion with a tailored complement of science instruments with direct-to-orbiter communication enabling wide-area operations. Other roles including working cooperatively with a central lander to provide area-wide sampling and science investigations. For future human exploration at Mars, helicopter can be employed to provide reconnaissance.
Article
Full-text available
Ceres, as revealed by NASA's Dawn spacecraft, is an ancient, crater-saturated body dominated by low-albedo clays. Yet, localised sites display a bright, carbonate mineralogy that may be as young as 2 Myr. The largest of these bright regions (faculae) are found in the 92 km Occator Crater, and would have formed by the eruption of alkaline brines from a subsurface reservoir of fluids. The internal structure and surface chemistry suggest that Ceres is an extant host for a number of the known prerequisites for terrestrial biota, and as such, represents an accessible insight into a potentially habitable “ocean world”. In this paper, the case and the means for a return mission to Ceres are outlined, presenting the Calathus mission to return to Earth a sample of the Occator Crater faculae for high-precision laboratory analyses. Calathus consists of an orbiter and a lander with an ascent module: the orbiter is equipped with a high-resolution camera, a thermal imager, and a radar; the lander contains a sampling arm, a camera, and an on-board gas chromatograph mass spectrometer; and the ascent module contains vessels for four cerean samples, collectively amounting to a maximum 40 g. Upon return to Earth, the samples would be characterised via high-precision analyses to understand the salt and organic composition of the Occator faculae, and from there to assess both the habitability and the evolution of a relict ocean world from the dawn of the Solar System.
Article
Full-text available
Robotic planetary aerial vehicles increase the range of terrain that can be examined, compared to traditional landers and rovers, and have more near-surface capability than orbiters. Aerial mobility is a promising possibility for planetary exploration as it reduces the challenges that difficult obstacles pose to ground vehicles. The first use of a rotorcraft for a planetary mission will be in 2021, when the Mars Helicopter technology demonstrator will be deployed from the Mars 2020 rover. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA Ames Research Center are exploring possibilities for a Mars Science Helicopter, a second-generation Mars rotorcraft with the capability of conducting science investigations independently of a lander or rover (although this type of vehicle could also be used assist rovers or landers in future missions). This report describes the conceptual design of Mars Science Helicopters. The design process began with coaxial-helicopter and hexacopter configurations, with a payload in the range of two to three kilograms and an overall vehicle mass of approximately twenty kilograms. Initial estimates of weight and performance were based on the capabilities of the Mars Helicopter. Rotorcraft designs for Mars are constrained by the dimensions of the aeroshell for the trip to the planet, requiring attention to the aircraft packaging in order to maximize the rotor dimensions and hence overall performance potential. Aerodynamic performance optimization was conducted, particularly through airfoils designed specifically for the low Reynolds number and high Mach number inherent in operation on Mars. The final designs show a substantial capability for science operations on Mars: a 31 kg hexacopter that fits within a 2.5 m diameter aeroshell could carry a 5 kg payload for 10 min of hover time or over a range of 5 km
Conference Paper
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-4143.vid Many aerial vehicles have been proposed for exploration of Venus in the past. In this paper, we propose the development of a manta ray inspired UAV for exploration of Venus. Manta rays are capable of withstanding large pressures when diving under the surface of the ocean to hunt. Their rigid bodies offer easy integration of electronics and their large pectoral fins generate a great deal of power which can be useful for an unmanned aerial vehicle. Both a flapping- and fixed-wing manta inspired UAV were investigated for flight on Venus. It was found that lift, drag, and mechanical power are maximized closer to the surface of Venus for the flapping-wing model. Similarly, lift and drag are maximized closer to the surface of Venus and for higher angles of attack for the fixed-wing model.