Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Confronting the AP9/AE9 Radiation Belt Models with Spacecraft Data and Other Models D.Heynderickx DH Consultancy, Leuven, Belgium P.R. Truscott Kallisto.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Confronting the AP9/AE9 Radiation Belt Models with Spacecraft Data and Other Models D.Heynderickx DH Consultancy, Leuven, Belgium P.R. Truscott Kallisto."— Presentation transcript:

1 Confronting the AP9/AE9 Radiation Belt Models with Spacecraft Data and Other Models D.Heynderickx DH Consultancy, Leuven, Belgium P.R. Truscott Kallisto Consultancy, Farnborough, UK 1 ESA Contract No /13/NL/AK ESA Technical Officers H. Evans, E.J. Daly 20 Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium European Space Weather Week 11

2 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 European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

3 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. European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

4 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 European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

5 SSO Proton spectra European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

6 SSO Electron spectra European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

7 SSO SHIELDOSE-2: protons European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

8 SSO SHIELDOSE-2: e-, Bremsstrahlung European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

9 GEO electron flux European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

10 MEO (GPS) electron flux European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

11 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 European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

12 AZUR data selection European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

13 AZUR data comparison European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

14 AZUR mission comparison European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

15 CRRES/MEA data selection European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

16 CRRES/MEA: quiet conditions European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

17 CRRES/MEA: active conditions European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

18 CRRES/MEA: active spectra European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

19 Giove-B/SREM: active spectra European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

20 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 European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

21 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. European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium

22 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. European Space Weather Week Nov 2014, Liège, Belgium


Download ppt "Confronting the AP9/AE9 Radiation Belt Models with Spacecraft Data and Other Models D.Heynderickx DH Consultancy, Leuven, Belgium P.R. Truscott Kallisto."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google