JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS
Vol. 36, No. 3, MayJune 1999
Mars Path nder Heatshield Design and Flight Experience
William H. Willcockson
Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, Colorado 80201
The Mars Path nder lander mission represented the rst return to the surface of Mars in over 20 years. Along
with the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter, it represented a new era in faster, cheaper, better planetary missions,
dramatically reducing costs below previous Mars programs. The design experience of the entry aeroshell, which
protected the lander during its hypersonic entry into the Martian atmosphere, is described. The design of the
aeroshell required a cooperative effort between Martin Marietta Corporation (now Lockheed Martin), the prime
contractor, and multiple NASA eld centers.
Introduction
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456
T HE Mars Path nder mission was undertaken by NASA as a
low-cost Mars lander. The mission was intended to pave the
way for low-cost access to the surface of Mars with a planned bud-
get of approximately$1:5 108 . This target representedan order of
magnitude reduction in cost below the Viking dual Orbiter/Lander
program of the 1970s, for which Martin Marietta provided the
Lander element. To implement such a low-cost venture, an approach
to ight elements that maximized ight heritage to minimize cost
and risk was needed. The entry capsule or aeroshell was a key ele-
ment to surface access, providing the lander with thermal protection
through the high-energy entry phase. Therefore, a contract was un-
dertakenwith Martin Marietta to producethe Path nder aeroshellby
use of the Viking-proven ablative thermal protection system (TPS)
on a Viking-con gured heatshield shape. New features included the
use of composites for the major structural elements, a simpli ed
backshell shape, and simpli ed seals between the heatshield and
backshell.
Viking Heritage
The Viking missions to Mars were own in 1976 and resulted in
the rst successful landing on the Martian surface (Fig. 1). Because
of its rst-ever nature, the Viking program was front loaded with an
extensive research and development program in the late 1960s and
early 1970s (Ref. 1). This included a variety of wind-tunnel tests
for the proposed 70-deg half-angle cone heatshield (aerodynamics
and heating), TPS testing, and parachute high-altitude tests. Martin
Marietta developed a lightweight ablator, called superlight abla-
tor (SLA)-561, which was applied to the Viking heatshield along
with a radio frequency (RF) transparent material known as SLA-
220 (Ref. 2). SLA-561V ablator consists of a mix of ground cork
and silica and phenolic microspheres in a silicone binder. This mix
is packed into a reinforcing phenolic honeycomb, which has been
prebonded to the heatshield structure. This process is very cost ef-
fective, requiring less than a day of operations for packing. The
material is an extremely high performer, combining outstandingab-
lation and insulation properties for Mars entry heating levels. Even
in the 1990s,three decadesafter its initial development,this material
outperforms more recently developed ceramic derivatives.
Because the Viking Lander was to perform entry from Mars orbit,
the maximum design heating rates were about 30 W/cm2 . Testing of
the TPS was performed in Denver, Colorado, using a 1.5-MW arcjet
facility. The overall manufacture of the lander and aeroshell system
was performed at the Denver facility. The Viking 1 mission launched
a combined Mars orbiter and lander on Aug. 20, 1975. Both vehicles
were propulsively captured into Mars orbit on June 19, 1976. The
culmination of the program was the successful landing of Viking 1
on the surface of Mars on July 20, 1976.
Received July 15, 1998; revision received Aug. 15, 1998; accepted for
publication March 2, 1999. Copyright c 1999 by William H. Willcockson.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
Senior Staff Engineer, Re-entry Systems.
374
Mars Lander Concepts After Viking:
Mars Polar Penetrator
Because of the spectacular success of the Viking program, many
of Martin Mariettas senior managers enthusiastically supported
efforts to return to the red planet. A team of entry design person-
nel and an associated database remained, which could be expanded
on for future missions. Preliminary proposals for a variety of Mars
missions were undertaken at the Denver facility immediately af-
ter Viking, including a mobile Viking Lander (using treads instead
of footpads), sample return missions, various Mars rovers, balloon
missions, etc.
In late 1989, Denvers Advanced Planetary Group was ap-
proached by James Martin, former NASA Langley Research Center
Viking Program Manager, to look into the feasibility of a bare bones
Mars entry vehicle based on the Viking entry vehicle shape. This
low-cost concept would drop ice penetrators onto the surface of the
Mars south polar cap. Called the Mars Polar Penetrator (Fig. 2), this
mission would strictly cut cost by eliminating the expensive support
orbiter required by Viking. This was accomplished by moving the
cruise power, attitude control, and telecommunications functions
inside the entry aeroshell itself. Spin stabilization, instead of the
three-axis attitude control of Viking, was proposed to keep correct
pointing during cruise and in the atmospheric entry phase. A direct
entry into the Mars atmosphere would reduce operations costs by
eliminating the Mars orbit phase of Viking. The signi cantly higher
heating rates of a direct Mars entry had actually been tested in an
internally funded SLA-561 study in the late 1960s; thus, it was felt
that the material could be used in this higher energy application.
Replacing the Viking soft lander with ice penetratorsbased on then-
funded Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby hardware was the
nal cost-reductionstep. This design study was presented to NASA
Headquarters on April 6, 1990.
Although the mission was not funded, many of its basic concepts
were then expanded upon by NASA Ames Research Center in their
Mars environmentalsurvey (MESUR) feasibility study produced in
1991. This study envisioned a series of 16 lightweight hard landers
with Viking-based entry aeroshells to produce a Mars meteorolog-
ical network. Though none of these various concepts were own,
they provided a background of thinking for a low-cost Mars lander
conceptthat was broughtto fruitionby the Jet PropulsionLaboratory
(JPL) in the form of the Mars Path nder mission in 1997.
Mars Path nder Proposal
In mid-1992 and 1993 Martin Marietta provided cost and tech-
nical data to JPL on a direct entry aeroshell concept for what was
then known as the MESUR Path nder mission. This program was to
be a path nder to pave the way for a more ambitious network mis-
sion, along the lines of the NASA Ames Research Center study. In
late 1993, we were asked to produce a formal proposal for an entry
heatshield for the Mars Path nder mission. The proposal involved
the use of the proven Viking aeroshell shape, which is a 70-deg
half-angle cone transitioning to a spherical nose cap of one-quarter
radius to diameter ratio. Although Viking had used an entry angle
 WILLCOCKSON
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456
Fig. 1 Viking Lander entry con guration.
Fig. 2 Mars polar penetrator concept, 1989.
of attack of 11 deg for most ef cient velocity reduction, a suf -
cient aerodynamic database for low angles of attack existed to give
con dence in a spin-stabilizedzero-angle-of-attackconcept. Initial
stability analyses showed that such an entry was possible at fairly
low spin rates (<5 rpm) (Ref. 3). An important aspect of perform-
ing a high-energy direct entry was the derivation of aerodynamic
parameters using computational uid dynamics (CFD). This com-
putational approach (replacing a large investment in wind-tunnel
testing) was assigned to NASA Langley Research Center.4;5 En-
try heating rate estimates of around 100 W/cm2 showed the Viking
SLA-561 quali cation range would be exceeded. Limited in-house
testing done in the 1960s gave con dence that the material should
perform well to at least 90 W/cm2 ; however, the material had last
been produced for a space mission in the 1970s. Thus recerti ca-
tion of this 20-year-old TPS system for the much higher Path nder
heating application was an important step. The use of high-energy
arcjet test facilities at NASA Ames Research Center in California
was necessaryto reach adequateheating rates. Initial screening test-
ing of SLA in December 1993 showed good performance at heating
rates up to 188 W/cm2 (Ref. 6).
An interestingproblem arose late in the feasibility assessment for
Path nder. The entry capsule consists of a heatshield and afterbody.
Because JPL knew the interfaces between the lander and cruise
stage, it was felt that the backshellwould have to be built in Pasadena,
California. From Martin Mariettas standpoint,the backshellwas an
integral part of the entry vehicle structural and thermal system and
should be designed within the same organization as the heatshield.
375
Fig. 3 Mars Path nder aeroshell system: major elements.
In November 1993, at the authors suggestion, a compromise was
acceptedwherebyMartin Mariettawould build most of the backshell
except for a backshellinterfaceplate (BIP) at the apex, which would
be tailored to the lander interfaces and built by JPL (Fig. 3). The
proposal for the Mars Path nder aeroshell was completed in March
1994 and the production started that July. Shipment of the ight
aeroshell to JPL was accomplished a little over a year later, on Sept.
27, 1995. After integration with the Lander and Cruise Stage at
JPL, the Mars Path nder spacecraft was launched to Mars on Dec.
4, 1996.
Aeroshell Contract Start
Production began in July 1994 with an initial meeting at JPL.
The serious job of turning promising concepts into ight-quali ed
procedures was an early step. Although a close relative used on the
Space Shuttle external tank7 was in current production, the Viking
SLA-561V manufacturing processes were 20 years out of date and
had to be updated. This represented a nontrivial step, requiring the
detailed reevaluation of an extensive set of ight-certi ed proce-
dures. As an example, a widely used solvent of the 1970s had to
be replaced because of 1990s environmentalrequirements. To meet
the system mass targets, Martin Marietta proposed a graphite-epoxy
composite primary structuresapproach.The wedding of lightweight
composite technology with the SLA ablator required requalifying
the total system (Vikings primary structure had been aluminum).
Adhesive tests had been performed by Martin Marietta Space Sys-
tems personnel at Michoud, Louisiana, prior to contract start, which
showed that the bond interfacebetween the TPS and structureshould
have adequate strength for the range of expected environments. In
the contractphase,several couponswere produced,which replicated
 376 WILLCOCKSON
the structural and TPS layup of the heatshield. Basic adhesion of
the SLA phenolic excore to composite facesheets was con rmed
through a series of pull tests. Bending tests at low and high tempera-
tures con rmed that the total system had adequatestrength and stiff-
ness. The upper limit of the system use was set at 480 F (250 C) be-
cause of adhesive limits in the composite bonding system. Although
higher temperature adhesives exist, their use would require addi-
tional certi cation testing, which was not justi ed in cost reduction.
Path nder Heatshield TPS Design
The initial TPS design thickness was de ned as a monolithic
coating over the heatshield structure forebody of 0.70 in. (1.78 cm).
This thicknesswas sized to maintain the stagnation-pointcomposite
structure at a maximum bondline temperature of 480 F (250 C) in
the entry phase. Although this resulted in excess material away from
the highestheatingpoint, a trade study of tailored TPS thicknesswas
deemed not cost effective for the 2 kg saved.
One of the challenges of the design process was the ever-
increasing entry mass of the vehicle. When Martin Mariettas con-
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456
tract was let, the vehicle had an entry ballistic coef cient W = C d A
of 45 kg/m2 . As time proceeded, this ballistic coef cient grew, rst
to 55 and nally to 65, representing over a 40% mass growth. The
primary impact was an increase in the required TPS thickness due to
higher heating. Keeping up with the evolving requirement required
an adaptive aerophysicsapproach. CFD provides a method for solv-
ing NavierStokes equations for ow about the vehicle in a detailed
computational grid. This allowed the vehicle to be designed in the
computer rather than in the traditional wind-tunnel experiments of
the past. Although the CFD technique is very powerful, the analy-
sis requires time and is not suited to rapid repetitive analyses. The
detailed entry environment had been de ned for a W =C d A of 55
by a combined effort from NASA Ames810 and NASA Langley5
Research Centers. To design the heatshield TPS system, Martin
Marietta had to combine these reference analyses together with our
own CFD and engineeringtools into a fairly speedy process.The use
of internal engineering codes was essential to the timely production
of usable heating pro les for TPS design as the vehicle entry mass
grew.
Similar to the aerothermal effort, initial reference TPS analyses
had been performed at NASA Ames Research Center using a lower
ballistic number than anticipated for ight. This preliminary siz-
ing indicated that 0.70 in. (1.78 cm) of SLA would be suf cient.
Using the updated heating environment and our material response
codes, we were able to derive a new thickness for the heatshield of
0.40 in. (1.02 cm), not including ight margins. The ight margins
included an assessment of aerothermal computational uncertainty,
angle-of-attack effects, material variability, as well as basic man-
ufacturing uncertainty. When these uncertainty effects were com-
bined, a margined SLA-561V thickness of 0.60 in. (1.52 cm) was
derived. Because most of the TPS certi cation testing had already
been performedfor the 0.70-in. design,the nal Martin Mariettarec-
ommendation for Path nder heatshield TPS thickness was 0.70 in.
(1.78 cm) of SLA-561V (Ref. 11). To cross check the design pro-
cess,NASA had previouslycontractedfor an independentheatshield
assessment. The recommendation from this assessment was for a
thicker system, 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) in thickness. Because the launch
margin was available, NASA elected to use the thicker of the two
estimates and stay with the most conservative approach for the rst
high-energy direct Mars entry. Thus, the Path nder heatshield de-
sign had an extremely low chance of thermal failure due to entry
heating.
SLA-561V Arcjet Testing
The recerti cation of the Path nder TPS system came in a se-
ries of arcjet tests in 1994, which subjected representative structure
plus TPS layups to up to twice the entry heating to be expected
in the Mars direct entry environment.12;13 Circular coupons 5.5 in.
in diameter were constructed with 0.70 in. of TPS bonded to a
1.25-in. (3.18-cm) composite substructure. Thermal response mea-
surements were taken via thermocouples sandwiched between the
TPS and structure.Besides basic SLA-561V performancedata in the
high-energy environment, tests were conducted on candidate repair
Table 1 Path nder TPS arcjet test program
Path nder TPS Maximum
test program Articles heating Date
SLA screening Plain coupons 188 W/cm 2
Dec. 1993
SLA shear tests Plain, repair options 51 W/cm2 March 1994
SLA quali cation 1 Plain, repair, plugs 185 W/cm2 July 1994
SLA quali cation 2 Plain, repair, plugs, voids 237 W/cm2 Sept. 1994
techniques, representative manufacturing defects, entry instrumen-
tation plugs, and low-temperature thermal shock cases (Table 1).
After initial problems with sample mounting were solved, the test
program proceeded very successfully. These arcjet tests resulted in
outstanding performance of SLA-561V when exposed to environ-
ments up to 240 W/cm2 and surface pressures up to 0.27 atm. As a
result of these tests, a better material response model was developed
by Martin Marietta Valley Forge Division (the former General Elec-
tric Re-Entry Systems Division, which produced such high-energy
entry vehicles as the Pioneer Venus and Galileo probes). This TPS
model is based on the Valley Forge REKAP material response code
and accounts for ablation, pyrolysis, radiation, and conduction ef-
fects to produce in-depth temperature predictions of a re-entry ve-
hicle. In the years since production of the Path nder aeroshell, the
SLA model has been extended to include thermochemical surface
erosion predictive capability by use of the CMA material response
code. These more recent results have shown the original Path nder
TPS model to be adequately conservative.The REKAP-based SLA-
561V model was used to produce bondline vs thickness predictions
that were the basis of the Path nder TPS design process.
The Path nder heatshield structure was designed as a single
2.65-m-diam composite structure.Viking had used a traditionalalu-
minum skin-stringerapproach,which was heavy and sensitiveto en-
try loading. The aeroshell structure was required to carry a design
entry mass of 602 kg under the peak loading of 31 g. Martin Marietta
relied on a strong space ight composite structure experience from
such development efforts as Magellan, Cassini, and Hubble. The
heatshield and backshell were required to separate in ight to allow
deployment of the lander. Six separation nuts held the two elements
together until ring, which allowed springs to push the two elements
apart. Once separation was initiated, the differential drag of the lan-
der and parachute acted to pull them away from the falling heat-
shield. The design of this hardware required dynamic simulation of
the two elements with aerodynamic loading and spring dynamics to
assure no recontact could occur. The separation system was veri ed
by a full-scale test, which used the aeroshell full-scale engineering
development unit. The heatshield and backshell were sealed at their
interface by a compliant high-temperaturebraided Astroquartz fab-
ric, which blocked the high-temperatureentry gasses but which did
not hinder the smooth release. Tolerances were extremely important
in the design of the aeroshell. Stringent geometric constraints were
important both for the entry ight stability of the vehicle and also
for maintaininglander clearances and minimal gapping of joints un-
der load. Because of rapid changes in the external pressure during
launch and re-entry, a vent was required that passed through the
aeroshell. To dissipate the energy of entry gasses, this vent had built
in screens that acted as heat sinks. The design of this vent relied
heavily on Viking test data for thermal sizing.
Once the heatshield structure was complete, the TPS phenolic
excore was applied to it and cured, and then the SLA-561V ablator
was packed in a single day. The unit was then oven cured and sanded
to the nal surface nish. Afterward, the ight thermocouples were
installed with a careful attention to tolerances, as veri ed by x rays.
The last step in the heatshield process was to install the ight seals
at Cape Canaveral.
Backshell Design
The backshell was somewhat easier to deal with (from a thermal
protection perspective). Overall the structural loads were lower, and
so the composite layup was only 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) thick. The layout
was more complex, however, because of the need for 10 holes to
provide safe and arm access points as well as mounting location
 WILLCOCKSON
for the aeroshell vent. The heating rates were much lower than the
heatshield (<15 W/cm2 maximum). These heating rates were based
on a limited set of afterbody CFD cases with correctionsapplied for
Viking-observedtransitionheatingincreases,as well as local surface
geometry step-change effects. At this heating rate, the well-proven
spray-on version of the SLA-561 is applicable. This TPS system
is currently used on the Space Shuttle external tank, and its manu-
facturing technique is well understood.7 Only 0.19 in. (0.48 cm) of
TPS was required to handle the entry heating, though the bondline
temperature requirement was somewhat lower (350 F, 177 C) be-
cause of the load concentrationnear the apex produced by entry and
terminal descent rocket ring. The backshell was manufactured as
a single composite unit and then shipped to Michoud. There it was
mounted on a spray xture, and the SLA-561S ablator applied.
Path nder Aeroshell Integration and Flight
The heatshield and backshell were shipped on Sept. 27, 1995,
from Denver Martin Marietta to JPL, where the lander and cruise
stage were being built and tested. This represented a 14.5-month
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456
development cycle from initial contract to hardware delivery. Af-
ter lander and cruise stage integration at JPL, the entire system
was launched on Dec. 4, 1996, in a spectacular night launch from
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station using a Delta 7925 rocket. Af-
ter a seven-month cruise, the vehicle encountered Mars on July 4,
1997. A signal from the craft was monitored throughout the entry,
which con rmed spacecraft health as well as major entry descent
Fig. 4 Path nder entry temperature sensor distribution.
Fig. 5 Path nder entry temperature sensor construction.
377
and landing (EDL) events. It was with great excitement that the
announcement was made that the lander had successfully touched
down on the surface of Mars. Shortly after landing, the onboard
memory, which included measurements of key data taken during
entry, was downlinked to Earth. Afterward the Lander Station made
a series of detailed images of the surrounding terrain and Sojourner
Rover. In one of these surfacephotographs,the spent backshellcould
be seen resting near the horizon.
Heatshield Entry Performance
The EDL data downlinked from the Path nder lander allowed us
insight into the performance of the entry capsule. The heatshield
had been instrumented with six thermocouples as part of the build
and nal closeout at Martin Marietta, Denver (Figs. 4 and 5). Three
bondline measurements were installed (stagnation, midcone, and
edge of the heatshield), two middepth (stagnation and edge), and
one subsurface (stagnation). These thermocouples were installed to
very tight tolerances (0.02 in. as veri ed by x ray) to allow accurate
reconstruction of temperature vs depth. Although pairs of thermo-
couples were installed for redundancy, only one of each pair was
physically connected in the nal integration. All but one of these
thermocouples returned usable data. The one that failed was unfor-
tunately the only near-surface measurement at the stagnation point.
Despite that disappointment and despite some signi cant problems
with the reference temperature calibration, the rest of the instru-
ments produced very usable entry data.
 378 WILLCOCKSON
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456

Fig. 6 Path nder stagnation heating pro le from reconstruct trajectory.

Fig. 7 Path nder entry stagnation temperature, measured vs predicted.

By the use of JPLs reconstruction of the entry trajectory14 and
our in-house aerophysics codes, we were able to construct a heat-
ing pro le for the entry, which had an estimated peak heating of
90 W/cm2 at the stagnation point (Fig. 6). This heating pro le
used pre ight aerophysics assumptions to generate an input to the
material response codes, thus providing an end-to-end test of the
interaction of the heating with the ablator response. These heat-
ing data were then used in our REKAP TPS material response
code to generate predictions of temperature vs time at various
depths of the TPS. Based on our material response models, we
had documented a prelaunch prediction of 64113 F (depending
on initial conditions) as the maximum bondline temperature rise
of the Path nder heatshield during its entry. The reconstructedma-
terial response showed a fairly small temperature rise at the criti-
cal structure/TPS bondline (due to the great abundance of TPS) of
about 55 F (31 C), which agreed reasonably well with the pre ight
prediction.
A far stronger signature resulted from the midpoint thermo-
couples. Here there was half the TPS thickness overlying the
thermocouplelocation,only 0.35 in. (0.89 cm). Other than the failed
subsurface thermocouple, this location gives the highest quality re-
sponse because it is closest to the highly energetic surface. There
was outstanding agreement between the ight measurement and
model prediction with both midpoint locations (Figs. 7 and 8). The
stagnation location measurements showed the largest temperature
rise (310 C, 558 F), as expected, due to the higher incident heat
ux at the apex of the heatshield. The edge location thermocou-
ple showed a smaller rise (230 C, 414 F) due to the falling off of
the heat ux along the conical section of the heatshield. The agree-
ment of the ight measurementswith the REKAP SLA-561V model
 WILLCOCKSON
Downloaded by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on January 16, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3456
Fig. 8 Path nder entry edge temperature, measured vs predicted.
reconstruction is within 10 C at the peak. These measurements are
very signi cant. From an engineering sense, they con rm the inter-
action of surface heating calculations with TPS material response,
thereby reaf rming the process required to con dently design an
entry vehicle. From a scienti c sense, the measurements did not
allow an unambiguous separation of the ow eld energy and ab-
lator response uncertainties. This is primarily due to the failure of
the near-surface stagnation thermocouple. The error in the entry
heating calculations remains at the pre ight estimate of 25%. As
a con rmation of the entry vehicle design process, the Path nder
measurements were an outstanding success.
Conclusion
The Mars Path nder was an early exercisein cheaper,faster,better
missions with extremely successful results. The aeroshell that car-
ried the lander through entry deceleration was designed and man-
ufactured via a similarly streamlined process at Martin Marietta
(now Lockheed Martin). A signi cant amount of the necessary en-
try design heritage was inherited from the Viking and Space Shuttle
external tank programs of the 1970s, as well as internally funded
design studies that followed. One of the primary Viking inheritances
was the heatshield ablator, SLA-561V, used to dissipate entry heat-
ing. This material had to be requali ed for Mars direct entry heating
rates, which were four times that of Viking. A key performance
discriminator was the use of composite technology in the structural
design of the aeroshell. Much of the required Mars entry design
data were generated by teaming government (JPL, NASA Langley
Research Center, and NASA Ames Research Center) and indus-
try (Martin Marietta). Organizationally, the demarcation between
the entry aeroshell and the lander interfaces was accomplished by
introducing an interface plate, the BIP, at the backshell apex. The
actual entry was accomplishedon July 4, 1997, followed by the suc-
cessful touchdown of the Path nder Lander on the surface of Mars.
The entry aeroshell hardware performed as expected. In particular,
the TPS data telemetered back after landing con rmed the expected
performance of the SLA- 561V heatshield ablator.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are given to Thomas Nelson, Program Manager
of the Path nder Aeroshell Program, and John Smith, the TPS De-
velopment Manager. The expertise of Thomas Edquist (aerother-
mal and TPS development) and Janine Thornton (TPS post ight)
were key foundations. Thanks are also given to Darius Brant,
Robert Brewer, Theodore Lamonaca, Kevin Miller, Owen Scott,
and Richard Merschel of Lockheed Martin; Elisabeth Wahl, Dara
379
Sabahi, and David A. Spencer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
Huy Tran and Michael Tauber of NASA Ames Research Center;
and Robert D. Braun and Robert A. Mitcheltree of NASA Langley
Research Center.
References
1 Viking Aerodynamics Databook, Martin Marietta Corp., TR-3709014,
Denver, CO, June 1972.
2 Strauss, E. L., Superlight Ablative Systems for Mars Lander Thermal
Protection, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, No. 10, 1967, pp.
13041309.
3 Braun, R. D., Powell, R. W., Engelund, W. C., Gnoffo, P. A., Weilmuen-
ster, K. J., and Mitcheltree, R. A., Mars Path nder Six-Degree-of-Freedom
Entry Analysis, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 6, 1995,
pp. 9931000.
4 Gnoffo, P. A., Braun, R. D., Weilmuenster, K. J., Mitcheltree, R. A.,
Engelund, W. C., and Powell, R. W., Prediction and Validation of Mars
Path nder Hypersonic Aerodynamic Database, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1999, pp. 367373.
5 Mitcheltree, R. A., Computational Aerothermodynamics for Mars
Path nder Including Turbulence, AIAA Paper 95-3493, Aug. 1995.
6 Tauber, M. E., Ames Research Center Arc-Jet Facility Tests of Candi-
date Heat Shield Materials for MESUR-Path nder, NASA Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field, CA, Feb. 9, 1994.
7
External Tank LWT Thermal Databook, Martin Marietta Manned
Space Systems, Pub. #80900200102,rev. D, Michoud, LA, Jan. 1995.
8
Candler, G. V., Computation of Thermo-Chemical Non-Equilibrium
Martian Atmosphere Entry Flows, AIAA Paper 90-1695, Jan. 1995.
9 Haas, B. L., Mars/Path nder Flow Calculations, NASA Ames Re-
search Center, Moffett Field, CA, June 1994.
10 Tauber, M. E., Turbulent Flow Heating on the Mars/Path nder Af-
terbody, Memo, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, Nov.
1994.
11 Willcockson, W. H., Mars Path nder Aeroshell, TPS Sizing Report,
Final, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, CO, Sept. 1995.
12 Tauber, M. E., Preliminary Data from September 1994 60 MW Arc-
jet Tests of SLA-561 Heat Shield Material Samples Bonded to Structure,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, Oct. 1994.
13 Brewer, R., and LaMonaca, T., ARC-TEST SLA-561 Temperature
Response Comparisons, Mars Path nder Aerothermal Working Group,
Denver, CO, Dec. 1994.
14 Spencer, D. A., Blanchard, R. A., Braun, R. D., Kallemeyn, P. H.,
and Thurman, S. W., Mars Path nder Entry, Descent, and Landing Re-
construction, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1999, pp.
357366.
R. D. Braun
Guest Editor