Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A framework is developed to enable high-fidelity, component-level, coupled fluid–thermal simulations over mission-scale trajectories. The framework integrates a custom solver that couples computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with finite element thermal analysis, while interfacing with a reduced-order thermal model to provide trajectory-dependent boundary conditions. The approach is applied to the fin–body gap region of a high-speed all-movable control surface over the course of a trajectory segment, where varying incoming boundary-layer characteristics are observed to shift gap-region flow structures with vehicle motion, driving movement of peak heating and temperature hot spots. Heating is amplified by up to [Formula: see text] relative to baseline conditions, with peak surface temperatures exceeding 2000 K. Additionally, two engineering-level prediction strategies are constructed and compared to the higher-fidelity coupled framework: one incorporating a single CFD solution and another neglecting CFD entirely. The former approach captures trends, and its root-mean-squared errors generally remain below [Formula: see text] in the thermal protection system and [Formula: see text] in the substructure, while the latter errors approach [Formula: see text] in the thermal protection system components.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Willems et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: