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.     

Reconciling space object observed and solar pressure albedo-areas via astrometric and photometric data fusion

There are many Resident Space Objects (RSOs) in the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) regime, both operational and debris. The primary non-gravitational force acting on these RSOs is Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP), which is sensitive to the RSO’s area-to-mass ratio. Sparse observation data and mismodeling of non-gravitational forces has constrained the state of practice in tracking and characterizing RSOs. Accurate identification, characterization, tracking, and motion prediction of RSOs is a high priority research issue as it shall aid in assessing collision probabilities in the GEO regime, and orbital safety writ large. Previous work in characterizing RSOs has taken a preliminary step in exploiting fused astrometric and photometric data to estimate the RSO mass, shape, attitude, and size. This works, in theory, since angles data are sensitive to SRP albedo-area-to-mass ratio, and photometric data are sensitive to shape, attitude, and observed albedo-area. By fusing these two data types, mass and albedo-area both become observable parameters and can be estimated as independent quantities. However, previous work in mass and albedo-area estimation has not quantified and assessed the fundamental physical link between SRP albedo-area and observed albedo-area. The observed albedo-area is always a function of the SRP albedo-area along the line of sight of the observer. This is the physical relationship that this current research exploits. It is shown through simulation that due to this physical link, and through the fusion of astrometric and photometric data, it is possible to observe the mass of a space object when the area is not known. Results for data from 100 trajectories generated from randomly sampled initial conditions are shown. It is seen that even when the area of the object is not known, the uncertainty in mass can be lowered from an initial value of 800?kg to the range 500–700?kg for 72% of the samples, 200–500?kg for 13% of the samples, and 0–200?kg for 15% of the samples. It is further shown that although the uncertainties are large, the actual errors in mass are much lower, with the error RMS being less than 100?kg for 30% of the samples, between 100 and 200?kg for another 30%, and between 200 and 300?kg for 24% of the samples.