Fig.1

Disk-gap-band parachute for Mars science laboratory mission［1］

Table 1

Domestic and overseas deep space exploration missions with supersonic parachutes［1，4-8］

Fig.2

Comparison of conical ribbon （left） and half-flow ribbon （right） parachutes［10-11］

Fig.3

Variation law of drag coefficient with Mach number for conical ribbon and half-flow ribbon parachutes［10］

Fig.4

Cross parachute in wind tunnel［11］

Fig.5

Profile of an attached inflatable decelerator［13］

Fig.6

IRVE structural cross-section diagram［22］

Fig.7

Sectional view of inflatable re-entry decelerator［23］

Fig.8

MAAC model in a wind tunnel test［15］

Fig.9

Inflatable re-entry decelerator in a test［15］

Fig.10

Schlieren image of flow fields around a rigid model of supersonic ribbon parachute with geometric porosity of 45%［31］

Fig.11

Schlieren images of instantaneous flow field at Mach number 2［33，38］

Fig.12

Instantaneous flow fields around a parachute with suspension lines in supersonic wind tunnel of JAXA （T=0.001 4 s）［44］

Table 2

Some important wind tunnel tests of supersonic parachute in Mars exploration missions［1，31-33，38-40，48-55］

Fig.13

Relationship between structural porosity and stability of supersonic ribbon parachute［31］

Fig.14

Area oscillation phenomenon of a 4% MSL parachute［51］

Fig.15

Variation of oscillation angle of supersonic parachute with Mach number［72］

Table 3

Summary of PEPP， SPED， SHAPE， BLDT， LDSD， and ASPIRE flight tests［4，56，73-85］

Fig.16

Changes in growth coefficient of canopy area for improved ringsail， cross， and DGB parachutes with different nominal diameters［68］

Fig.17

Area changes of improved ringsail， cross， and DGB parachutes opening at Mach number 1.6［68，70-71］

Fig.18

Successful IAD flight test deployment conditions （* indicates peak conditions）［17］

Fig.19

IAD and DGB parachute drag comparison［17］

Fig.20

Time-variations of canopy shape for a supersonic parachute with different d/D0 at X/d of 4.75［41］

Fig.21

Parachute canopy shape changes during disk-gap-band parachute opening process［108］

Fig.22

Mach contour of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator［131］

Fig.23

Surface deformation contour of IRDT［136］

Fig.24

Simulation process of parachute rope straightening［144］

Fig.25

Comparison of dynamic simulation results［158］

Fig.26

Schematic diagram of IRDT’s ultralight heat-resistant structure［163］

Fig.27

Schematic diagram of interlayer structure of Andrews Space heat-resistant material［168］

Fig.28

Comparison of flexible thermal insulation material specimens before （left） and after （right） high enthalpy wind tunnel test［15］