{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019743336623889437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011846001974333662, 'mean_word_length': 5.179878048780488, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Unsteady pressure fluctuations measured on a hammerhead space vehicle and comparison with Coe and Nute's 1962 data

A detailed survey of pressure fluctuations was conducted on a replica of the generic, “hammerhead” shaped space vehicle tested more than half century ago by Coe and Nute (1962). A large number of current and past space vehicles follow this general hammerhead configuration. The present test was conducted in the 11-by-11 ft Transonic Wind Tunnel of NASA Ames Research Center over the critical transonic Mach number range of 0.6 ≤ M ≤ 1.2 where typical vehicles encounter very high levels of surface pressure fluctuations during ascent through the atmosphere. Out of the many different types of instrumentations used for this test, data from the dynamic pressure sensors are presented in this paper. In addition, shadowgraph flow visualizations, and a qualitative measure of turbulent fluctuations, estimated from high-speed photography, are also presented. The data set provided a clear insight into the local high level of fluctuations from the formation of the transonic shocks on the payload fairing and also from the impingement of the separated shear layer on the second stage. Space–time correlation showed interesting physics of upstream propagation of pressure fluctuations on the payload fairing when local shock waves were present. A comparison of the magnitude of pressure fluctuations between the present test and that done earlier by Coe and Nute showed good agreement when the limited frequency bandwidth of equipment used in the latter was accounted for. Similarly, when accounting for the differences in the free-stream dynamic pressure, the spectra of surface pressure fluctuations were in reasonable agreement between the present and Coe–Nute tests. The present test provides a far more complete picture of pressure fluctuations due to the usage of a large number of pressure transducers (216 versus 30), wider frequency bandwidth (50 kHz versus 1 kHz), and unsteady pressure-sensitive paint.