Deducing Electron Properties from Hard X-ray Observations

X-radiation from energetic electrons is the prime diagnostic of flare-accelerated electrons. The observed X-ray flux (and polarization state) is fundamentally a convolution of the cross-section for the hard X-ray emission process(es) in question with the electron distribution function, which is in turn a function of energy, direction, spatial location and time. To address the problems of particle propagation and acceleration one needs to infer as much information as possible on this electron distribution function, through a deconvolution of this fundamental relationship. This review presents recent progress toward this goal using spectroscopic, imaging and polarization measurements, primarily from the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI). Previous conclusions regarding the energy, angular (pitch angle) and spatial distributions of energetic electrons in solar flares are critically reviewed. We discuss the role and the observational evidence of several radiation processes: free-free electron-ion, free-free electron-electron, free-bound electron-ion, photoelectric absorption and Compton backscatter (albedo), using both spectroscopic and imaging techniques. This unprecedented quality of data allows for the first time inference of the angular distributions of the X-ray-emitting electrons and improved model-independent inference of electron energy spectra and emission measures of thermal plasma. Moreover, imaging spectroscopy has revealed hitherto unknown details of solar flare morphology and detailed spectroscopy of coronal, footpoint and extended sources in flaring regions. Additional attempts to measure hard X-ray polarization were not sufficient to put constraints on the degree of anisotropy of electrons, but point to the importance of obtaining good quality polarization data in the future.     

A feasibility study for the detection of the diurnal variation of tropospheric NO2 over Tokyo from a geostationary orbit

We have conducted a feasibility study for the geostationary monitoring of the diurnal variation of tropospheric NO₂ over Tokyo. Using NO₂ fields from a chemical transport model, synthetic spectra were created by a radiative transfer model, SCIATRAN, for summer and winter cases. We then performed a Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS) analysis to retrieve NO₂ slant column densities (SCDs), and after converting SCDs into vertical column densities (VCDs), we estimated the precision of the retrieved VCDs. The simulation showed that signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) ? 500 is needed to detect the diurnal variation and that SNR ? 1000 is needed to observe the local minimum occurring in the early afternoon (LT13–14) in summer. In winter, the detection of the diurnal variation during LT08–15 needs SNR ? 500, and SNR ? 1000 is needed if early morning (LT07) and early evening (LT16) are included. The currently discussed sensor specification for the Japanese geostationary satellite project, GMAP-Asia, which has a horizontal resolution of 10 km and a temporal resolution of 1hr, has demonstrated the performance of a precision of several percent, which is approximately corresponding to SNR = 1000–2000 during daytime and SNR ? 500 in the morning and evening. We also discuss possible biases caused by the temperature dependence of the absorption cross section utilized in the DOAS retrieval, and the effect of uncertainties of surface albedo and clouds on the estimation of precisions.     

Mercury Ion Analyzer (MIA) onboard Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter: MMO

The Mercury Magnetopsheric Orbiter (MMO) is one of the spacecraft of the BepiColombo mission; the mission is scheduled for launch in 2014 and plans to revisit Mercury with modern instrumentation. MMO is to elucidate the detailed plasma structure and dynamics around Mercury, one of the least-explored planets in our solar system. The Mercury Plasma Particle Experiment (MPPE) on board MMO is a comprehensive instrument package for plasma, high-energy particle, and energetic neutral particle atom measurements. The Mercury Ion Analyzer (MIA) is one of the plasma instruments of MPPE, and measures the three dimensional velocity distribution of low-energy ions (from 5 eV to 30 keV) by using a top-hat electrostatic analyzer for half a spin period (2 s). By combining both the mechanical and electrical sensitivity controls, MIA has a wide dynamic range of count rates for the proton flux expected around Mercury, which ranges from 10⁶ to 10¹² cm⁻² s⁻¹ str⁻¹ keV⁻¹, in the solar wind between 0.3 and 0.47 AU from the sun, and in both the hot and cold plasma sheet of Mercury’s magnetosphere. The geometrical factor of MIA is variable, ranging from 1.0 × 10⁻⁷ cm² str keV/keV for large fluxes of solar wind ions to 4.7 × 10⁻⁴ cm² str keV/keV for small fluxes of magnetospheric ions. The entrance grid used for the mechanical sensitivity control of incident ions also work to significantly reduce the contamination of solar UV radiation, whose intensity is about 10 times larger than that around Earth’s orbit.     

一种大变形多空间域连续体结构拓扑优化方法

针对大变形非线性结构拓扑优化问题,提出了基于混合细胞自动机(HCA, Hybrid Cellular Automata)多空间域连续体结构拓扑优化方法;采用密度法,建立了单元相对密度表示的材料弹-塑性模型;以单元相对密度和应变能作为细胞自动机(CA,Cellular Automata)的状态信息,利用CA局部控制规则,修改相对密度,迭代实现各设计空间域应变能均匀分布;设计了多空间域拓扑优化HCA算法,采取多个对象同时耦合优化迭代,各自收敛策略,解决了多空间域优化迭代算法收敛稳定性问题;最后,以汽车保险杆结构横梁和支撑等两个设计空间为例,施加大变形动态载荷作用,对提出的多空间结构优化算法进行了验证,优化后结构有效地降低了碰撞作用力峰值达54％,提高了结构安全性.     

Plasmaspheric Density Structures and Dynamics: Properties Observed by the CLUSTER and IMAGE Missions

Plasmaspheric density structures have been studied since the discovery of the plasmasphere in the late 1950s. But the advent of the Cluster and Image missions in 2000 has added substantially to our knowledge of density structures, thanks to the new capabilities of those missions: global imaging with Image and four-point in situ measurements with Cluster. The study of plasma sources and losses has given new results on refilling rates and erosion processes. Two-dimensional density images of the plasmasphere have been obtained. The spatial gradient of plasmaspheric density has been computed. The ratios between H⁺, He⁺ and O⁺ have been deduced from different ion measurements. Plasmaspheric plumes have been studied in detail with new tools, which provide information on their morphology, dynamics and occurrence. Density structures at smaller scales have been revealed with those missions, structures that could not be clearly distinguished before the global images from Image and the four-point measurements by Cluster became available. New terms have been given to these structures, like “shoulders”, “channels”, “fingers” and “crenulations”. This paper reviews the most relevant new results about the plasmaspheric plasma obtained since the start of the Cluster and Image missions.     

TUGSAT-1/BRITE-Austria—The first Austrian nanosatellite

A nanosatellite to investigate the brightness oscillations of massive luminous stars by differential photometry is currently developed by a Canadian/Austrian team within the BRITE (Bright Target Explorer) project. The first Austrian satellite funded by the Austrian Space Program, called TUGSAT-1/BRITE-Austria, builds on the space heritage of the most successful Canadian CanX-2 and MOST missions. The satellite makes use of recent advances in miniaturized attitude determination and control systems. Precision three-axis stabilization by small reaction wheels and a star tracker provides the necessary accuracy for the photometer telescope to the arcminute level. This will provide to the astronomers photometric data of the most massive stars with unprecedented precision; data which cannot be obtained from the ground due to limitations imposed by the terrestrial atmosphere.The paper describes the spacecraft characteristics and the ground infrastructure being established in support of the BRITE mission which will consist of a constellation of up to four nearly identical satellites allowing to carry out long-term observation of stars (magnitude +3.5) not only with respect to brightness variations, but also in different spectrum ranges.     

Technology readiness and risk assessments: A new approach

Systems that depend upon the application of new technologies inevitably face three major challenges during development: performance, schedule and budget. Technology research and development (R&D) programs are typically advocated based on argument that these investments will substantially reduce the uncertainty in all three of these dimensions of project management. However, if early R&D is implemented poorly, then the new system developments that plan to employ the resulting advanced technologies will suffer from cost overruns, schedule delays and the steady erosion of initial performance objectives. It is often critical for senior management to be able to determine which of these two paths is more likely—and to respond accordingly. The challenge for system and technology managers is to be able to make clear, well-documented assessments of technology readiness and risks, and to do so at key points in the life cycle of the program.Several approaches have been used to evaluate technology maturity and risk in order to better anticipate later system development risks. The “technology readiness levels” (TRLs), developed by NASA, are one discipline-independent, programmatic figure of merit (FOM) that allows more effective assessment of, and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies. Another broadly used management tool is of the “risk matrix”, which depends upon a graphical representation of uncertainty and consequences. However, for the most part these various methodologies have had no explicit interrelationship.This paper will examine past uses of current methods to improve R&D outcomes and will highlight some of the limitations that can arise. In this context, a new concept for the integration of the TRL methodology, and the concept of the “risk matrix” will be described. The paper will conclude with observations concerning prospective future directions for the important new concept of integrated “technology readiness and risk assessments”.     

Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective

The development of new system capabilities typically depends upon the prior success of advanced technology research and development efforts. These systems developments inevitably face the three major challenges of any project: performance, schedule and budget. Done well, advanced technology programs can substantially reduce the uncertainty in all three of these dimensions of project management. Done poorly, or not at all, and new system developments suffer from cost overruns, schedule delays and the steady erosion of initial performance objectives. It is often critical for senior management to be able to determine which of these two paths is more likely—and to respond accordingly. The challenge for system and technology managers is to be able to make clear, well-documented assessments of technology readiness and risks, and to do so at key points in the life cycle of the program.In the mid 1970s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) introduced the concept of “technology readiness levels” (TRLs) as a discipline-independent, programmatic figure of merit (FOM) to allow more effective assessment of, and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies. In 1995, the TRL scale was further strengthened by the articulation of the first definitions of each level, along with examples (J. Mankins, Technology readiness levels, A White Paper, NASA, Washington, DC, 1995. [1]). Since then, TRLs have been embraced by the U.S. Congress’ General Accountability Office (GAO), adopted by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and are being considered for use by numerous other organizations. Overall, the TRLs have proved to be highly effective in communicating the status of new technologies among sometimes diverse organizations.This paper will review the concept of “technology readiness assessments”, and provide a retrospective on the history of “TRLs” during the past 30 years. The paper will conclude with observations concerning prospective future directions for the important discipline of technology readiness assessments.     

Characterizing high-energy-density propellants for space propulsion applications

A technique for computationally determining the thermophysical properties of high-energy-density matter (HEDM) propellants is presented. HEDM compounds are of interest in the liquid rocket engine industry due to their high density and high energy content relative to existing industry-standard propellants. In order to accurately model rocket engine performance, cost and weight in a conceptual design environment, several thermodynamic and physical properties are required over a range of temperatures and pressures. The approach presented here combines quantum mechanical and molecular dynamic (MD) calculations and group additivity methods. A method for improving the force field model coefficients used in the MD is included. This approach is used to determine thermophysical properties for two HEDM compounds of interest: quadricyclane and 2-azido-N,N-dimethylethanamine (DMAZ). The modified force field approach provides results that more accurately match experimental data than the unmodified approach. Launch vehicle and Lunar lander case studies are presented to quantify the system level impact of employing quadricyclane and DMAZ rather than industry standard propellants. In both cases, the use of HEDM propellants provides reductions in vehicle mass compared to industry standard propellants. The results demonstrate that HEDM propellants can be an attractive technology for future launch vehicle and Lunar lander applications.     

Ares I–X Flight Test Vehicle similitude to the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I–X Flight Test Vehicle is the first in a series of flight test vehicles that will take the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle design from development to operational capability. Ares I–X is scheduled for a 2009 flight date, early enough in the Ares I design and development process so that data obtained from the flight can impact the design of Ares I before its Critical Design Review. Decisions on Ares I–X scope, flight test objectives, and FTV fidelity were made prior to the Ares I systems requirements being baselined. This was necessary in order to achieve a development flight test to impact the Ares I design. Differences between the Ares I–X and the Ares I configurations are artifacts of formulating this experimental project at an early stage and the natural maturation of the Ares I design process. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the Ares I–X Flight Test Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. Areas of comparison include the outer mold line geometry, aerosciences, trajectory, structural modes, flight control architecture, separation sequence, and relevant element differences. Most of the outer mold line differences present between Ares I and Ares I–X are minor and will not have a significant effect on overall vehicle performance. The most significant impacts are related to the geometric differences in Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle at the forward end of the stack. These physical differences will cause differences in the flow physics in these areas. Even with these differences, the Ares I–X flight test is poised to meet all five primary objectives and six secondary objectives. Knowledge of what the Ares I–X flight test will provide in similitude to Ares I—as well as what the test will not provide—is important in the continued execution of the Ares I–X mission leading to its flight and the continued design and development of Ares I.