NASA s development of new concepts for the Crew Exploration Vehicle Orion presents many similar challenges to those worked in the sixties during the Apollo program. However, with improved modeling capabilities, new challenges arise. For example, the use of the commercial code LS-DYNA, although widely used and accepted in the technical community, often involves high-dimensional, time consuming, and computationally intensive simulations. Because of the computational cost, these tools are often used to evaluate specific conditions and rarely used for statistical analysis. The challenge is to capture what is learned from a limited number of LS-DYNA simulations to develop models that allow users to conduct interpolation of solutions at a fraction of the computational time. For this problem, response surface models are used to predict the system time responses to a water landing as a function of capsule speed, direction, attitude, water speed, and water direction. Furthermore, these models can also be used to ascertain the adequacy of the design in terms of probability measures. This paper presents a description of the LS-DYNA model, a brief summary of the response surface techniques, the analysis of variance approach used in the sensitivity studies, equations used to estimate impact parameters, results showing conditions that might cause injuries, and concluding remarks.

Finite element analyses have been performed for two full-scale crash tests of an MD-500 helicopter. The first crash test was conducted to evaluate the performance of a composite deployable energy absorber under combined flight loads. In the second crash test, the energy absorber was removed to establish the baseline loads. The use of an energy absorbing device reduced the impact acceleration levels by a factor of three. Accelerations and kinematic data collected from the crash tests were compared to analytical results. Details of the full-scale crash tests and development of the system-integrated finite element model are briefly described along with direct comparisons of acceleration magnitudes and durations for the first full-scale crash test. Because load levels were significantly different between tests, models developed for the purposes of predicting the overall system response with external energy absorbers were not adequate under more severe conditions seen in the second crash test. Relative error comparisons were inadequate to guide model calibration. A newly developed model calibration approach that includes uncertainty estimation, parameter sensitivity, impact shape orthogonality, and numerical optimization was used for the second full-scale crash test. The calibrated parameter set reduced 2-norm prediction error by 51% but did not improve impact shape orthogonality.