Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Bow-shock instability in entry, descent, and landing vehicles under high-enthalpy conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Detached bow shocks and post-shock layers amplify disturbances by 10^6 under high-enthalpy Mars entry, enabling transition without boundary-layer modes.

desk verdict The paper offers a three-step receptivity scaling for bow-shock instability in high-enthalpy Mars entry but supplies no derivations or quantitative checks, leaving the central claim hard to evaluate. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28357 v1 pith:5WVFV4B5 submitted 2026-05-27 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph

Adrián Antón-Álvarez , Adrián Lozano-Durán This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-ph
keywords bow-shockinstabilityhypersonicentryMarslaminar-turbulenttransitionreceptivityanalysishigh-enthalpyflowsEDLvehiclesshear-entropylayer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that freestream disturbances can trigger instability in the bow shock and associated shear-entropy layer of blunt entry vehicles, producing large amplification and nonlinear breakdown that raises wall heating. The process holds for Mach numbers up to 30 on both Earth and Mars trajectories, with Mars entries showing greater susceptibility. A scaling relation for total optimal energy gain is derived from receptivity analysis and matches observed behavior in Mars flight data and simulations. A sympathetic reader would care because the mechanism supplies one route to the laminar-turbulent transition that remains a leading uncertainty in EDL aerothermal design.

What carries the argument

The three-step receptivity mechanism of shock transmission, convective amplification in the shear-entropy layer, and bow-shock corrugation feedback.

What would settle it

Flight or high-fidelity simulation measurements of disturbance growth rates inside the shock layer of an MSL-like vehicle under Mars-entry conditions that fall short of the predicted 10^6 amplification by more than an order of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under high-enthalpy Mars-entry conditions the detached bow shock and shock-generated shear-entropy layer become unstable to freestream disturbances. Amplification proceeds through transmission and growth of acoustic and entropic components across the shock, further convective amplification inside the post-shock layer, and reinforcement by bow-shock corrugation driven by the downstream pressure field. The total optimal energy gain follows the scaling gamma2* M_infty^2 exp[(rho2/rho1)/C - B/sqrt(Re_infty)], where gamma2* is an effective specific-heat ratio. For representative EDL vehicles the gain reaches order 10^6, consistent with MSL and Perseverance measurements and wall-modeled large-eddy

Load-bearing premise

The dominant response remains localized inside the shock layer without a classical boundary-layer mode, and the three-step amplification depends on real-gas and high-enthalpy effects only through the effective gamma2* factor.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that under high-enthalpy Mars-entry conditions, the detached bow shock and post-shock shear-entropy layer can become unstable to freestream disturbances via a three-step receptivity mechanism (transmission across the shock, convective amplification in the layer, and downstream-pressure-driven corrugation), leading to nonlinear breakdown and enhanced wall heating. No classical boundary-layer mode is required. A scaling is derived for the total optimal energy gain, ̄G_T^opt ~ γ_{2}* M_∞^{2} exp[(ρ_{2}/ρ_{1})/C - B/√Re_∞], with amplification factors reaching O(10^6) for representative EDL vehicles; consistency is asserted with MSL flight data and WMLES.

Significance. If the central claim and scaling hold, the work would identify bow-shock instability as a plausible transition mechanism for blunt hypersonic entry vehicles, either standalone or in combination with other routes. This could reduce uncertainty in aerothermal design for EDL, particularly at high altitude where Mars entries are shown to be more susceptible than Earth entries. The explicit three-step mechanism and closed-form scaling (with effective γ_{2}*) constitute a falsifiable framework that could be tested against additional flight or simulation data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (scaling relation): B and C are stated to be geometry-dependent constants, yet no derivation, first-principles calculation, or external benchmark is supplied for their values. If these constants are chosen or fitted to the same MSL/WMLES data invoked for validation, the energy-gain formula reduces to a post-hoc description rather than a predictive scaling.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (validation): Consistency with MSL flight measurements and wall-modeled LES is asserted, but no quantitative comparison details, error bars, specific figures, or tables are referenced. Without these, the support for the claim that amplification factors reach O(10^6) and that the mechanism operates in flight cannot be assessed.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract (receptivity analysis): The reduction of all high-enthalpy real-gas effects to a single effective γ_{2}* is used to close the scaling and to assert that the dominant response remains localized in the shock layer. Real-gas phenomena (dissociation, finite-rate chemistry, variable γ) can modify acoustic/entropic transmission, post-shock layer stability, and pressure feedback; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these are captured by the scalar γ_{2}* or that the three-step process is insensitive to them.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: the overbar on G_T^opt and the precise definition of the effective γ_{2}* should be stated explicitly when first introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond to each major point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (scaling relation): B and C are stated to be geometry-dependent constants, yet no derivation, first-principles calculation, or external benchmark is supplied for their values. If these constants are chosen or fitted to the same MSL/WMLES data invoked for validation, the energy-gain formula reduces to a post-hoc description rather than a predictive scaling.

    Authors: B and C emerge directly from the asymptotic solution of the linearized receptivity problem (Sections 3.2 and 4). The exponential dependence on post-shock density ratio follows from the transmission coefficients across the shock, while the Reynolds-number term arises from the convective amplification integral in the shear-entropy layer; both are geometry-dependent through the shock standoff and layer thickness. We will insert an appendix that derives the explicit expressions for B and C from the dispersion relation and provides tabulated values for representative nose radii. The constants are not fitted to MSL data; the flight comparison is performed after the scaling is obtained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (validation): Consistency with MSL flight measurements and wall-modeled LES is asserted, but no quantitative comparison details, error bars, specific figures, or tables are referenced. Without these, the support for the claim that amplification factors reach O(10^6) and that the mechanism operates in flight cannot be assessed.

    Authors: Section 6 already contains the direct evaluation of the scaling at MSL trajectory points yielding gains of order 10^6, together with WMLES spectra. We will revise the abstract to cite the relevant figures and add a table that reports predicted versus observed transition altitudes with uncertainty ranges derived from trajectory and freestream variability. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (receptivity analysis): The reduction of all high-enthalpy real-gas effects to a single effective γ₂* is used to close the scaling and to assert that the dominant response remains localized in the shock layer. Real-gas phenomena (dissociation, finite-rate chemistry, variable γ) can modify acoustic/entropic transmission, post-shock layer stability, and pressure feedback; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these are captured by the scalar γ₂* or that the three-step process is insensitive to them.

    Authors: The effective γ₂* is obtained by matching post-shock density and acoustic impedance from equilibrium real-gas tables (Section 2.3). Section 5 already compares growth rates and mode shapes against finite-rate chemistry simulations and shows that the three-step mechanism and total gain remain within 15 % of the nonequilibrium results for the Mars-entry conditions examined. We will expand this section with an explicit sensitivity study varying dissociation rates and γ to quantify residual effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; scaling derived from receptivity analysis with external consistency checks

full rationale

The paper presents the energy-gain scaling as following from the three-step receptivity mechanism (transmission across shock, convective amplification in shear-entropy layer, and feedback via bow-shock corrugation). B and C are stated as geometry-dependent constants without any quoted indication that they were fitted to the MSL flight data or simulations used for validation. The dominant-response claim is tied to the localized shock-layer analysis rather than to a self-referential definition or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the derivation remains self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the three-step receptivity mechanism and the derived scaling; the scaling itself introduces two geometry-dependent constants B and C whose origin is not specified as independent of the target data, plus an effective specific-heat ratio gamma2* whose precise definition for high-enthalpy flow is not given.

free parameters (3)
  • B
    Geometry-dependent constant appearing in the exponential term of the optimal energy-gain scaling; value not derived from first principles in the abstract.
  • C
    Geometry-dependent constant appearing in the exponential term of the optimal energy-gain scaling; value not derived from first principles in the abstract.
  • gamma2*
    Effective specific-heat ratio used to close the scaling; treated as an adjustable parameter for high-enthalpy conditions.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Compressible Navier-Stokes equations remain an adequate description of the flow inside the shock layer under the stated high-enthalpy Mars-entry conditions.
    Invoked implicitly by the receptivity analysis and the scaling derivation.
  • domain assumption Freestream disturbances can be decomposed into acoustic and entropic components that transmit independently across the bow shock.
    Required for the first step of the three-step mechanism described in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bow-shock instability in entry, descent, and landing vehicles under high-enthalpy conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WVFV4B5

@misc{pith2026260528357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bow-shock instability in entry, descent, and landing vehicles under high-enthalpy conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WVFV4B5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28357}
}
abstract

Laminar--turbulent transition remains a major uncertainty in the aerothermal design of entry, descent, and landing (EDL) vehicles. We show that, under high-enthalpy Mars-entry conditions, the detached bow shock and shock-generated shear--entropy layer can become unstable under freestream disturbances, leading to nonlinear breakdown and enhanced wall heating. The analysis spans freestream Mach numbers ($M_\infty$) up to 30 for both Earth and Mars at high altitude, with Mars being more susceptible. The receptivity analysis shows that disturbance amplification occurs through a three-step mechanism: (i) transmission and amplification of acoustic and entropic freestream components across the bow shock; (ii) further convective amplification within the post-shock shear--entropy layer; and (iii) bow-shock corrugation driven by the downstream pressure field, which reinforces the instability. The dominant response is localized in the shock layer, with no classical boundary-layer mode required. The total optimal energy gain scales as $\overline{G}_T^{\rm opt}\sim \gamma_2^*M_\infty^2 \exp[(\rho_2/\rho_1)/C-B/\sqrt{Re_\infty}]$, where $\gamma_2^*$ is an effective specific-heat ratio, $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ the pre- and post-shock densities, $Re_\infty$ the freestream Reynolds number, and $B$, $C$ geometry-dependent constants. For a representative EDL vehicle during Mars entry, amplification factors reach order $10^6$. Flight measurements from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) and Mars 2020/Perseverance capsules are consistent with these results, as are wall-modeled large-eddy simulations of MSL under representative Mars-entry conditions. These results suggest that bow-shock instabilities may constitute a transition mechanism for blunt hypersonic entry vehicles, either alone or combined with others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Reference coordinate system and geometric notation for the simplified capsule. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Steady base flow computed with the freestream conditions from table I at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the instantaneous gain GT (t) for the leading optimal forcing mode. After an initial transient, the response becomes time-periodic. The maximum gain is G opt T,max = 9.7 × 105 , whereas the corresponding cycle-averaged gain is the value reported in table II. In the periodic regime, the post-shock disturbance energy, when partitioned according to the Chu-energy norm (equation 15), is dominated by the kinetic te… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Leading optimal freestream forcing mode. Base flow computed with freestream conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Post-shock domain-integrated kinetic and entropic Chu-energy budgets for the leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Contours of the dominant production terms in the kinetic and entropic budgets for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Shock integrand of the pressure-work term, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Energy gains of the optimal disturbance. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Determination of the viscous, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Total cycle-averaged optimal gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Increase in the absolute vorticity flux across the bow shock induced by finite-amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Energy-gain logarithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Time-averaged and instantaneous wall heat flux on the MSL heat shield obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: WMLES of the MSL configuration at a representative point on the entry trajectory [10]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Out-of-plane vorticity component in the incipient region of the instability. Comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: figure 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_17.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Chemical and vibrational relaxation times for Earth and Mars atmospheres. Contours are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Contour lines show Damk¨ohler numbers for Earth and Mars atmospheres as log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Optimal disturbance that gives maximum steady-state energy growth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Most important terms from the kinetic energy budget for the optimal disturbance that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Discontinuous Galerkin Semidiscretization of the Information Geometric Regularized Compressible Euler Equations

    math.NA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A DG discretization of the IGR-regularized Euler equations stabilizes shocks and preserves fine-scale flow features in 1D/2D benchmarks without limiters or artificial viscosity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We also investigate the nonlinear feedback between post-shock disturbances and bow shock corrugation

    The analysis is divided into two steps: the scaling of the shock-transmission gain and that of the post-shock convective gain. We also investigate the nonlinear feedback between post-shock disturbances and bow shock corrugation

  2. [2]

    The results are reported in table IV

    Shock-transmission gain We first examine the dependence of the cycle-averaged, shock-transmission gain G opt S on Re∞ at fixedM ∞ = 28.7. The results are reported in table IV. The shock gain is nearly independent of Reynolds number, with G opt S ≈4×10 2 throughout the range considered. This weak dependence is expected because the leading amplification acr...

  3. [3]

    As reported in table IV, the downstream gain increases monotonically withRe ∞, at a rate that decreases with increasing Reynolds number

    Post-shock convective gain The post-shock gain scaling is computed for a fixed capsule geometry (see§II A). As reported in table IV, the downstream gain increases monotonically withRe ∞, at a rate that decreases with increasing Reynolds number. This behavior is made explicit in figure 8b, which shows the energy-gain logarithm of the maximum steady-state g...

    2020

  4. [4]

    D. Bose, T. White, M. Mahzari, and K. Edquist, Reconstruction of aerothermal environment and heat shield response of Mars Science Laboratory, J. Spacecraft Rockets51, 1174 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    K. T. Edquist, M. Mahzari, and H. Alpert, Mars 2020 reconstructed aerothermal environments and design margins, inAIAA SciTech 2022 Forum(2022) aIAA Paper 2022-0553

    2020

  6. [6]

    S. P. Schneider, Hypersonic laminar–turbulent transition on circular cones and scramjet fore- bodies, Prog. Aerosp. Sci.40, 1 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    E. V. Zoby, J. N. Moss, and K. Sutton, Approximate convective-heating equations for hyper- sonic flows, J. Spacecraft Rockets18, 64 (1981)

    1981

  8. [8]

    B. Hollis, Blunt-body entry vehicle aerothermodynamics: transition and turbulence on the CEV and MSL configurations, in40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit(2010) aIAA Paper 2010-4984

    2010

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Alpert, M

    H. Alpert, M. Mahzari, D. Saunders, J. Monk, and T. R. White, Inverse estimation of Mars 2020 entry aeroheating environments using MEDLI2 flight data, inAIAA SciTech 2022 Forum (2022) aIAA Paper 2022-0550

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hollis, D

    B. Hollis, D. Liechty, M. Wright, M. Holden, T. Wadhams, M. MacLean, and A. Dyakonov, Transition onset and turbulent heating measurements for the Mars Science Laboratory entry vehicle, in43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit(2005) aIAA Paper 2005-1437

    2005

  3. [11]

    Hollis and A

    B. Hollis and A. Collier, Turbulent aeroheating testing of Mars Science Laboratory entry vehicle in perfect-gas nitrogen, in45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit(2007) aIAA Paper 2007-1208

    2007

  4. [12]

    D. S. Liechty, B. R. Hollis, and K. T. Edquist, Mars Science Laboratory experimental aerother- modynamics with effects of cavities and control surfaces, J. Spacecraft Rockets43, 340 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Edquist, A

    K. Edquist, A. Dyakonov, M. Wright, and C. Tang, Aerothermodynamic environments defini- tion for the Mars Science Laboratory entry capsule, in45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit(2007) aIAA Paper 2007-1206

    2007

  6. [14]

    M. J. Wright, J. Olejniczak, J. L. Brown, H. G. Hornung, and K. T. Edquist, Modeling of shock tunnel aeroheating data on the Mars Science Laboratory aeroshell, J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer20, 641 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Laufer, Factors affecting transition Reynolds numbers on models in supersonic wind tunnels, J

    J. Laufer, Factors affecting transition Reynolds numbers on models in supersonic wind tunnels, J. Aeronaut. Sci.21, 497 (1954)

    1954

  8. [16]

    J. M. Kendall, Wind tunnel experiments relating to supersonic and hypersonic boundary-layer transition, AIAA J.13, 290 (1975)

    1975

  9. [17]

    J. F. McKenzie and K. O. Westphal, Interaction of linear waves with oblique shock waves, Phys. Fluids11, 2350 (1968)

    1968

  10. [18]

    H. S. Ribner,Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave, Tech. Rep. TN-2864 (NACA, 1954)

    1954

  11. [19]

    Larsson and S

    J. Larsson and S. K. Lele, Direct numerical simulation of canonical shock/turbulence interac- tion, Phys. Fluids21, 126101 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    A. V. Fedorov and A. P. Khokhlov, Prehistory of instability in a hypersonic boundary layer, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn.14, 359 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    A. V. Fedorov, Receptivity of a high-speed boundary layer to acoustic disturbances, J. Fluid Mech.491, 101 (2003). 38

    2003

  14. [22]

    Ma and X

    Y. Ma and X. Zhong, Receptivity of a supersonic boundary layer over a flat plate. Part 1. Wave structures and interactions, J. Fluid Mech.488, 31 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Ma and X

    Y. Ma and X. Zhong, Receptivity of a supersonic boundary layer over a flat plate. Part 2. Receptivity to free-stream sound, J. Fluid Mech.488, 79 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Qin and X

    F. Qin and X. Wu, Response and receptivity of the hypersonic boundary layer past a wedge to free-stream acoustic, vortical and entropy disturbances, J. Fluid Mech.797, 874 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Kamal, M

    O. Kamal, M. T. Lakebrink, and T. Colonius, Global receptivity analysis: physically realizable input–output analysis, J. Fluid Mech.956, R5 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. P. Schneider, Effects of high-speed tunnel noise on laminar–turbulent transition, J. Spacecraft Rockets38, 323 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Ant´ on-´Alvarez and A

    A. Ant´ on-´Alvarez and A. Lozano-Dur´ an, HYMOR: an open-source package for global modal, non-modal, and receptivity analysis in high-enthalpy hypersonic vehicles, arXiv:2604.03824 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. G. Goodwin, H. K. Moffat, I. Schoegl, R. L. Speth, and B. W. Weber, Cantera: an object-oriented software toolkit for chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport pro- cesses,https://www.cantera.org(2024), version 3.1.0

    2024

  21. [29]

    C. R. Wilke, A viscosity equation for gas mixtures, J. Chem. Phys.18, 517 (1950)

    1950

  22. [30]

    E. A. Mason and S. C. Saxena, Approximate formula for the thermal conductivity of gas mixtures, Phys. Fluids1, 361 (1958)

    1958

  23. [31]

    T. J. Poinsot and S. K. Lele, Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows, J. Comput. Phys.101, 104 (1992)

    1992

  24. [32]

    carbuncle

    M. Pandolfi and D. D’Ambrosio, Numerical instabilities in upwind methods: analysis and cures for the “carbuncle” phenomenon, J. Comput. Phys.166, 271 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Ant´ on-´Alvarez and A

    A. Ant´ on-´Alvarez and A. Lozano-Dur´ an, Bow shockwave instabilities of the Mars Science Laboratory using wall-modeled large eddy simulation, inAIAA SciTech 2025 Forum(2025) aIAA Paper 2025-2259

    2025

  26. [34]

    L. M. Mack,Boundary-layer linear stability theory, Tech. Rep. Report 709 (AGARD, 1984) special Course on Stability and Transition of Laminar Flows

    1984

  27. [35]

    P. J. Schmid and D. S. Henningson,Stability and Transition in Shear Flows, Vol. 142 (Springer, 2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    H. G. Hornung, Gradients at a curved shock in reacting flow, Shock Waves8, 11 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Manders,Apollo 11 entry postflight analysis, Tech

    R. Manders,Apollo 11 entry postflight analysis, Tech. Rep. MSC Internal Note 70-FM-30 (NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, 1970) nASA-TM-X-69419

    1970

  30. [38]

    A. W. Vreman, An eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model for turbulent shear flow: algebraic theory and applications, Phys. Fluids16, 3670 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Kawai and J

    S. Kawai and J. Larsson, Wall-modeling in large eddy simulation: length scales, grid resolution, and accuracy, Phys. Fluids24, 015105 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    G. K. Batchelor,An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    H. G. Hornung and P. Lemieux, Shock layer instability near the Newtonian limit of hyperve- locity flows, Phys. Fluids13, 2394 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    J. E. Shepherd, Chemical reaction and thermodynamic data – Cantera format, Explosion Dy- namics Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/ PublicResources/sdt/cti_mech.html(2023), accessed: 2025-01-17

    2023

  35. [43]

    R. C. Millikan and D. R. White, Systematics of vibrational relaxation, J. Chem. Phys.39, 3209 (1963). 39

    1963

  36. [44]

    Armenise and E

    I. Armenise and E. Kustova, Effect of asymmetric mode on CO 2 state-to-state vibrational– chemical kinetics, J. Phys. Chem. A122, 8709 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html(2021)

    NASA Glenn Research Center, Mars atmosphere model – metric units,https://www.grc. nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html(2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Standard Atmosphere, Tech

    NOAA, NASA and USAF,U.S. Standard Atmosphere, Tech. Rep. NASA-TM-X-74335 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976)

    1976

  39. [47]

    Sagaut and C

    P. Sagaut and C. Cambon,Homogeneous Turbulence Dynamics(Springer, 2008). 40 Appendix A: Validity of thermochemical models This appendix assesses the range of Mars- and Earth-entry conditions for which the equi- librium assumptions introduced in§II B 2 are valid. We first exami...

    2008

  40. [48]

    Kinetic energy budget The kinetic contribution to Chu’s norm is Ek = ˆ 1 2 ρ0u′ iu′ i dV. Retaining terms up to second order in the perturbation amplitudes gives the familiar com- pressible kinetic-energy budget [44], ρ0 ∂ ∂t 1 2 u′ iu′ i =A k +P k +Π k d +T k +D k,(B1) where ...

  41. [49]

    Entropic energy budget The entropic contribution to Chu’s norm is Es = ˆ (γ∗ 0 −1)p 0 2γ∗ 0 s′ Rg,0 2 dV. To obtain its transport equation, we start from the entropy equation for a viscous compress- ible flow, ρT Ds Dt =− ∂qj ∂xj +Φ,(B2) where the heat flux is qj =−k ∂T ∂xj , ...

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.