ALBERT

Description: The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) is currently planned on being released from its Micro-Meteorite/Orbital Debri (MM/OD) shielding housing about two days before the Earth entry phase. This leaves the EEV exposed to incoming MM/OD impacts, potentially damaging the heat shield and compromising its Entry, Decent, and Landing (EDL) integrity. Currently, two materials are proposed to comprise the MSR-EEV heat shield, a dual layer material Heat-shield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) and Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA). PICA has been well characterized for OD class impacts, ~7km/s high mass impacts, from previous testing done in the Orion program, but hasn't under-gone extensive MM impact testing. HEEET is a rela-tively new material with minimal prior testing in re-gards to High Velocity Impacts (HVI). In order to in-form selectability of a material, it is crucial to under-stand the material performance when faced with an HVI, directly affecting mission success probability.The current measure of a Thermal Protection Sys-tem's (TPS) performance against an HVI is evaluating a thermally sized material against its derived Balistic Limit Equation (BLE). A BLE is generated empirically from multiple shots of HVI testing, and is used as a first order method in evaluating TPS's performance against the expected MM/OD environment. This method has proved useful for previous uniform densi-ty TPS materials, but has never been validated against a dual layer recession material such as HEEET. Testing in the MSR program for FY19 has a re-quirement to assess the effects of a dual layer TPS by testing various thicknesses of HEEET's Recession Layer, seen in Figure 1. From this data, BLE's will be derived for the individual thickness ratio samples, as well as the material as a whole to evaluate if a heritage form of the BLE can capture the complex physics associated with a dual layer system. Crater morpholo-gy will also be assessed with post-test Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) methods such as CT scanning to visualize if a BLE can well predict the associated pene-tration depths, since a BLE assumes full disinigration of the impacting particle and is generally only used to size a spherical crater ? disregarding any shrapenel effects from a high density impactor.To inform this analysis, expected MM environ-ments from the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM) and analytical equations for mass flux of incoming MM were evaluated against the notional MSR-EEV trajectory [1]. Using those dispersions, a monte-carlo was run to determine the most probable particle pa-rameters, as well as the riskiest in terms of full bondline penetration. From these probabilities, a test matrix was designed to test against bounding cases for the various parameters of the BLE: projectile density, projectile mass, projectile velocity, and the impact angle.This presentation will discuss the performance of the dual layer TPS material HEEET against a wide range of impact kinetic energies and densitites, as well as the comparison of HEEET to PICA in terms of MM/OD performance and selectability criteria.

Description: The NASA Risk Informed Decision Making process is used to assess a trade space of three dimensionally woven thermal protection systems for application to the Mars Sample Return Earth Entry Vehicle. Candidate architectures are assessed based on mission assurance, technical development, cost, and schedule risk. Assessment methodology differed between the architectures, utilizing a four-point quantitative scale for mission assurance and technical development and highly tailored PERT techniques for cost and schedule. Risk results are presented, in addition to a review of RIDM effectiveness for this application.

Description: The NASA Risk Informed Decision Making process is used to assess a trade space of three dimensionally woven thermal protection systems for application to the Mars Sample Return Earth Entry Vehicle. Candidate architectures are assessed based on mission assurance, technical development, cost, and schedule risk. Assessment methodology differed between the architectures, utilizing a four-point quantitative scale for mission assurance and technical development and highly tailored PERT techniques for cost and schedule. Risk results are presented, in addition to a review of RIDM effectiveness for this application.