an evaluation of the ap9/ae9 radiation belt models for application in
TRANSCRIPT
Confronting the AP9/AE9 Radiation Belt Models with Spacecraft Data and Other Models
D.HeynderickxDH Consultancy, Leuven, BelgiumP.R. TruscottKallisto Consultancy, Farnborough, UK
1
ESA Contract No. 4000108483/13/NL/AK
ESA Technical OfficersH. Evans, E.J. Daly
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
umEu
rope
an S
pace
Wea
ther
Wee
k 11
Context• Concern in European space industry about higher fluxes (and
thus doses) predicted by AP9/AE9• Analysis of differences with other models• Implementation in SPENVIS• User education• Recommendations for ECSS space environment standard• Feedback to the IRENE team of issues encountered during the
analysis
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
2
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Comparison methods• Intercomparison of models• Run different models on a spacecraft trajectory set of points, for
representative orbits (LEO, MEO, GTO, GEO)• Comparison of trajectory fluences• Comparison of fluences used in radiation effects models (TID,
NIEL, solar cell degradation)• Comparisons of model fluxes to spacecraft data• Run models on the trajectory data in the various datasets, for the
energy bins of the instruments.• Compare time series and fluence spectra.• Try to account for anisotropy effects in LEO. Eu
rope
an S
pace
Wea
ther
Wee
k 11
3
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Test scenarios: generic trajectories
• Geostationary at longitudes 75°, 180° and 285°• Comparison with AP/AE-8, IGE
• GTO: inc 5°, perigee 300 km, apogee 36,000 km• Comparison with AP/AE-8, CRRESELE, CRRESPRO
• MEO (Galileo GNSS): circular, altitude 23,222 km, inc 56°• Comparison with AP/AE-8, CRRESELE, CRRESPRO
• MEO (GPS): altitude 20,200 km• Comparison with AP/AE-8, CRRESPRO, CRRESELE, MEO-V1/2
• Sun-synchronous: altitude 800 km (inc 98.6°)• Comparison with AP/AE-8
• Large Observatory for X-ray Timing (LOFT): circular, altitude 600 km• Comparison with AP/AE-8
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
4
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
SSO Proton spectra
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
5
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
SSO Electron spectra
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
6
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
SSO SHIELDOSE-2: protons
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
7
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
SSO SHIELDOSE-2: e-, Bremsstrahlung
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
8
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
GEO electron flux
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
9
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
MEO (GPS) electron flux
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
10
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Test scenarios: datasets• Procedure:• Convert spacecraft ephemeris to SPENVIS and IRENE trajectory
file format (identical for GDZ except for shift in MJD)• Run models using the instrument energy channels• Compare orbit evolution plus trajectory fluence spectra
• Datasets:• CRRES/MEA: 110 keV – 1.6 MeV electrons • AZUR/EI-88: 1.5–104 MeV protons• Giove-B/SREM: calibrated electron channels• Integral/SREM: calibrated electron channels• SAMPEX/PET: 19–500 MeV protons
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
11
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
AZUR data selection
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
12
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
AZUR data comparison
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
13
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
AZUR mission comparison
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
14
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
CRRES/MEA data selection
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
15
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
CRRES/MEA: quiet conditions
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
16
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
CRRES/MEA: active conditions
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
17
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
CRRES/MEA: active spectra
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
18
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Giove-B/SREM: active spectra
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
19
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Conclusions (1)• More analysis is needed to compare the models to longer time
averages of the datasets.• GEO environment• AE-8 and AE-9 Mean are comparable, AE-9 extends the energy
range (needs evaluation).• IGE2006 (ECSS model) is (much) lower.• High energy flux predictions need further evaluation in view of
updates of ECSS• Are longitudinal effects important?
• LEO• AP-9 overestimates the extent of the SAA region.• AP-9 overestimates below ~70 MeV and underestimates above.• AE-9 is consistently higher than AE-8 except for >1.5 MeV
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
20
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Conclusions (2)• MEO• MEOV2 mean is lower than AE-9 mean, MEOV2 upper is in good
agreement with AE-9 90%.• High energy component needs further evaluation. Until then, AE-
8/MAX can be used in this region.• Pending long term model to data comparisons, the ECSS
recommendation (MEOV2) can be maintained.
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
21
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um
Recommendations• A more in-depth analysis is needed to evaluate the models
(IRENE and other) with longer time averages of spacecraft data.• Construct (omni-)directional flux maps from AZUR/EI-88 and
SAMPEX/PET proton data• Analyse PROBA-V/EPT data• Analysis of the high energy electron spectrum
• Ingest AZUR/EI-88, SAMPEX/PET and RBSP/REPT/MAGEIS data into the IRENE models.
• Provide more detailed information on the construction of the IRENE models.
• Review the usage of the confidence level and Monte Carlo versions of the models.
Euro
pean
Spa
ce W
eath
er W
eek
11
22
20 N
ov 2
014,
Liè
ge, B
elgi
um