the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Dec 2023
Simulations of the collection of mesospheric dust particles with rocket instrument
Abstract. We investigate the collection of dust from the mesosphere with the MESS instrument that is designed to fly on a sounding rocket. The instrument consists of a collection device with an opening and closure mechanism and an attached conic funnel. Attaching the funnel increases the sampling area in comparison to the collection area. The instrument will collect primary particles that directly hit the collection area and secondary particles that form from mesospheric dust hitting the funnel. We simulate the entry and impact of dust onto the detector considering their trajectories in the airflow and the fragmentation at the funnel. We estimate the collection efficiency of the instrument and the impact energy of particles at the collecting area. The design considered has a sampling area of 5 cm diameter and a collection area of 1.8 cm diameter.
We use the results of the calculations to estimate the amount of dust that MESS (MEteoric Smoke Sampler) can collect during a rocket flight. We consider meteoric smoke particles (MSP) based on a model of the MSP distribution. In addition we assume that water ice particles that form close to the mesopause contain a fraction of smaller MSP. The water ice sublimates during the collection or later during rocket flight so that only refactory material remains. Assuming the collected particles contain 3 % volume fraction of MSP, we find that the instrument would collect of the order of 1014 to 1015 amu of refractory MSP particles. The estimate basis on the assumption that the ice components are melting and the flow conditions in the instruments are for typical atmospheric pressures at 85 km. Aside from the instrument conditions that we investigate in this paper, our estimate of the mass that we expect to collect with MESS applies the results from a particle transport model for the meteoric smoke particles and from the description of noctilucent cloud particles based on published model and observational results.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3027 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3027 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2762', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2023
The paper presents a novel rocket-borne instrument MESS (MEteoric Smoke Sampler) for sampling of Meteoric Smoke Particles (MSP) in mesosphere and justifying its aerodynamic properties. The authors present results of aerodynamic simulations for the instrument flying at supersonic velocities and for MSP-flow through this environment into the instrument.
The paper is well-structured, and the results are clearly present.
However, from the beginning and until the end of reading it is clear that the paper needs a proper proofreading (there are many typos and unclear sentences). Furthermore, physical quantities and their units must be separated by a whitespace (e.g., 85 km). I marked some of unclear sentences in the supplemented pdf.
Regarding science/technical questions:
1. I, personally, would be interested in the parameter “angle of attack”, which is mentioned but not addressed. For example, which angle (value) is a critical angle, so, that at larger angles no particle sampling is possible?
2. Which speed of particles inside the instrument is acceptable for a “successful collection”, i.e., for the particle to stick to the grid?
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adrien Pineau, 13 Jan 2024
We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments.
We are proofreading the text and making the necessary revisions.
The reviewer asks whether the “angle of attack” of the rocket is a critical parameter. Indeed, it influences the trajectories of the dust particles in the instrument and their collection. The reflection and fragmentation of the dust particles at the funnel walls would also be changed accordingly. In the worst-case scenario, i.e. when the instrument is tilted 90 degrees to the airflow during the entire flight, collection is made impossible although such a situation is unlikely. As a first approximation, it is assumed that an angle of attack larger than 45 degrees is critical since the collection would be significantly reduced for those angles. In addition to the rocket tilt, the collection is no longer efficient due to the opened lid that blocks some dust particles. This is an uncertainty, and we will mention this in the modified manuscript.
The reviewer asks what speed of particles is needed so that the particles stick to the collection grid. We are unable to give a quantitative answer to this question but we expect that the number of particles that bounce off from the collection grid is small for the impact speeds larger 100 m/s that we find for most of the particles. We are not aware of studies of nano dust impacting carbon foils. For investigating the particle growth in protoplanetary disks, the collisions of larger aggregate particles were investigated both experimentally and theoretically and bouncing was found for collision velocities of 1 – 10 m/s and smaller for particles of the same material (see, for instance, Wada et al. The Astrophysical Journal, 2011, Blum, J., & Wurm, G. ARA&A, 2008). Bouncing is prevented when the kinetic energy of the impacting particle is immediately transferred to the target. We expect that this is the case at the collection grids, where the particles hit a carbon foil. The film has a relatively low material strength and the particles would rather penetrate the foil due to head-on collisions.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adrien Pineau, 13 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2762', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jan 2024
The paper investigates an instrument design to collect meteor smoke particles on TEM samples during a sounding rocket flight for post-flight analyses in a laboratory. It focuses on how these particles are transported from the environment, through the geometry of the instrument, onto the TEM samples, during the conditions of a super sonic flow. To track the particles a public model and an in-house model are combined and applied to different altitudes and payload speeds, taking into account that MSP can be immersed in ice particles.
A study on how particles interact with such an instrument is very important in order to optimize the outcome of such measurements.
General comments:
The manuscript could improve on language and precision from title to summary.
The manuscript is sometimes imprecise on whether ice particles or dust particles or large dust particles are at focus.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Line 7: The dimensions given in the abstract are different from the drawing.
Line 14: Last sentence difficult to understand.
Section 1
Line 28+ : The PMSE / radar physics are not sufficiently (e.g. turbulence, bragg scale structures) or imprecise described (“ wavelength of scattered radars”), particle size might not play a direct role here.
The source of the assumed particle size distribution should be given more explicitly.
Line 36: It is mentioned that built-in dust probes are the only way for in-situ composition measurements of these particles, however an honorable mention of mass spectrometers is justified given the fact that mass spectrometers are flown into this atmospheric region since many decades.
Line 46 - 51: The goal for the paper should be described more precise, large dust, large MSP, ice particles, MSP in ice particles? IP abbreviation not introduced.
Section 2
Figure 1: The simplified drawing for the instrument in the simulation omits the lid completely. It seems as if the lid could have a significant impact on the flow and potential shadowing for certain angles of attack, especially for low apogee (low speed) mission profiles where the angle of attack is higher.
Line 74+: The mentioned pressure valve function is unclear: if the instrument opens after nose cone ejection and closes at apogee, how does it maintain the pressure at nose cone ejection in the instrument? Why is it needed at all?
Further if the pressure valve is venting the instrument during flight, the “air cushion” formed by the trapped air inside the funnel is considerable smaller as simulated in section 4.1 ?
Section 3:
Line 80: grammar
Line 91: Since it is very unlikely that dust particles, sublimate through background gas collisions, the author means ice particles?
Line 133: The Knudsen number cannot characterize the mesosphere, as it is a relation between the environment and the length of a characteristic structure (payload or instrument).
Figure 2: little difference between the 2 panels in the figure, maybe possible to improve.
Section 3.3: If the section only treats ice particles, this should be made more clear.
Section 4:
Line 156: the unit is “ms-1“ not “m.s-1” throughout the paper
Line 168: the current atmospheric model is called NRLMSISE-00. The given reference is outdated and the name is insufficient but the value seem legit.
Figure 3 – 6 : While one figure nicely shows how the shock is formed around the instrument it is quite difficult to assess the simulation results for their numbers, e.g. the number density inside the funnel. A summary plot of a point in the funnel or at point of interest would probably be of more value and reduce the number of figures with rather similar appearance.
Figure 7: The figure is supposed to show particle trajectories from the simulations. As it appears the particle size only gives very trivial cases of a ray-like behavior and does not show how e.g. a particle is trapped or subjected to background collisions.
Line 224: How is the given conclusion be drawn from Figure 7?
Line 232: If an initial ice particle splits several times to finally create remnants all below 0.8 nm and thus ultimately is removed from the simulation, would that not remove quite a lot of potential MSP? i.e. underestimate the total collected amount?
Line 211 period after “Figure 7a”
Line 225 grammar around “being taken away”
Line 230 radii
In section 4.6 it would be nice to see the assumed particle densities, at least by pointing to a certain figure or maybe even from a reprint of the underlying densities, to evaluate the numbers.
Maybe include the ideal case if any particle entering the funnel would be collected, even if the results have a large uncertainty.
Line 384: The tilt under an angle of attack can be easily simulated with DS2V using 2D flows, why would you need 3D?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
We thank the referee for the thorough review of our manuscript and the constructive comments.
A proofreading of the whole manuscript is currently being done in order to improve the language and add more precisions as pointed out by the referee. All of the comments about language, grammar, notations will be taken into accounts in the revised version of the manuscript. The comments or questions about physics or unclear parts are answered in the attached document and the manuscript will be modified accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-AC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2762/egusphere-2023-2762-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2762', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2023
The paper presents a novel rocket-borne instrument MESS (MEteoric Smoke Sampler) for sampling of Meteoric Smoke Particles (MSP) in mesosphere and justifying its aerodynamic properties. The authors present results of aerodynamic simulations for the instrument flying at supersonic velocities and for MSP-flow through this environment into the instrument.
The paper is well-structured, and the results are clearly present.
However, from the beginning and until the end of reading it is clear that the paper needs a proper proofreading (there are many typos and unclear sentences). Furthermore, physical quantities and their units must be separated by a whitespace (e.g., 85 km). I marked some of unclear sentences in the supplemented pdf.
Regarding science/technical questions:
1. I, personally, would be interested in the parameter “angle of attack”, which is mentioned but not addressed. For example, which angle (value) is a critical angle, so, that at larger angles no particle sampling is possible?
2. Which speed of particles inside the instrument is acceptable for a “successful collection”, i.e., for the particle to stick to the grid?
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adrien Pineau, 13 Jan 2024
We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments.
We are proofreading the text and making the necessary revisions.
The reviewer asks whether the “angle of attack” of the rocket is a critical parameter. Indeed, it influences the trajectories of the dust particles in the instrument and their collection. The reflection and fragmentation of the dust particles at the funnel walls would also be changed accordingly. In the worst-case scenario, i.e. when the instrument is tilted 90 degrees to the airflow during the entire flight, collection is made impossible although such a situation is unlikely. As a first approximation, it is assumed that an angle of attack larger than 45 degrees is critical since the collection would be significantly reduced for those angles. In addition to the rocket tilt, the collection is no longer efficient due to the opened lid that blocks some dust particles. This is an uncertainty, and we will mention this in the modified manuscript.
The reviewer asks what speed of particles is needed so that the particles stick to the collection grid. We are unable to give a quantitative answer to this question but we expect that the number of particles that bounce off from the collection grid is small for the impact speeds larger 100 m/s that we find for most of the particles. We are not aware of studies of nano dust impacting carbon foils. For investigating the particle growth in protoplanetary disks, the collisions of larger aggregate particles were investigated both experimentally and theoretically and bouncing was found for collision velocities of 1 – 10 m/s and smaller for particles of the same material (see, for instance, Wada et al. The Astrophysical Journal, 2011, Blum, J., & Wurm, G. ARA&A, 2008). Bouncing is prevented when the kinetic energy of the impacting particle is immediately transferred to the target. We expect that this is the case at the collection grids, where the particles hit a carbon foil. The film has a relatively low material strength and the particles would rather penetrate the foil due to head-on collisions.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adrien Pineau, 13 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2762', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jan 2024
The paper investigates an instrument design to collect meteor smoke particles on TEM samples during a sounding rocket flight for post-flight analyses in a laboratory. It focuses on how these particles are transported from the environment, through the geometry of the instrument, onto the TEM samples, during the conditions of a super sonic flow. To track the particles a public model and an in-house model are combined and applied to different altitudes and payload speeds, taking into account that MSP can be immersed in ice particles.
A study on how particles interact with such an instrument is very important in order to optimize the outcome of such measurements.
General comments:
The manuscript could improve on language and precision from title to summary.
The manuscript is sometimes imprecise on whether ice particles or dust particles or large dust particles are at focus.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Line 7: The dimensions given in the abstract are different from the drawing.
Line 14: Last sentence difficult to understand.
Section 1
Line 28+ : The PMSE / radar physics are not sufficiently (e.g. turbulence, bragg scale structures) or imprecise described (“ wavelength of scattered radars”), particle size might not play a direct role here.
The source of the assumed particle size distribution should be given more explicitly.
Line 36: It is mentioned that built-in dust probes are the only way for in-situ composition measurements of these particles, however an honorable mention of mass spectrometers is justified given the fact that mass spectrometers are flown into this atmospheric region since many decades.
Line 46 - 51: The goal for the paper should be described more precise, large dust, large MSP, ice particles, MSP in ice particles? IP abbreviation not introduced.
Section 2
Figure 1: The simplified drawing for the instrument in the simulation omits the lid completely. It seems as if the lid could have a significant impact on the flow and potential shadowing for certain angles of attack, especially for low apogee (low speed) mission profiles where the angle of attack is higher.
Line 74+: The mentioned pressure valve function is unclear: if the instrument opens after nose cone ejection and closes at apogee, how does it maintain the pressure at nose cone ejection in the instrument? Why is it needed at all?
Further if the pressure valve is venting the instrument during flight, the “air cushion” formed by the trapped air inside the funnel is considerable smaller as simulated in section 4.1 ?
Section 3:
Line 80: grammar
Line 91: Since it is very unlikely that dust particles, sublimate through background gas collisions, the author means ice particles?
Line 133: The Knudsen number cannot characterize the mesosphere, as it is a relation between the environment and the length of a characteristic structure (payload or instrument).
Figure 2: little difference between the 2 panels in the figure, maybe possible to improve.
Section 3.3: If the section only treats ice particles, this should be made more clear.
Section 4:
Line 156: the unit is “ms-1“ not “m.s-1” throughout the paper
Line 168: the current atmospheric model is called NRLMSISE-00. The given reference is outdated and the name is insufficient but the value seem legit.
Figure 3 – 6 : While one figure nicely shows how the shock is formed around the instrument it is quite difficult to assess the simulation results for their numbers, e.g. the number density inside the funnel. A summary plot of a point in the funnel or at point of interest would probably be of more value and reduce the number of figures with rather similar appearance.
Figure 7: The figure is supposed to show particle trajectories from the simulations. As it appears the particle size only gives very trivial cases of a ray-like behavior and does not show how e.g. a particle is trapped or subjected to background collisions.
Line 224: How is the given conclusion be drawn from Figure 7?
Line 232: If an initial ice particle splits several times to finally create remnants all below 0.8 nm and thus ultimately is removed from the simulation, would that not remove quite a lot of potential MSP? i.e. underestimate the total collected amount?
Line 211 period after “Figure 7a”
Line 225 grammar around “being taken away”
Line 230 radii
In section 4.6 it would be nice to see the assumed particle densities, at least by pointing to a certain figure or maybe even from a reprint of the underlying densities, to evaluate the numbers.
Maybe include the ideal case if any particle entering the funnel would be collected, even if the results have a large uncertainty.
Line 384: The tilt under an angle of attack can be easily simulated with DS2V using 2D flows, why would you need 3D?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
We thank the referee for the thorough review of our manuscript and the constructive comments.
A proofreading of the whole manuscript is currently being done in order to improve the language and add more precisions as pointed out by the referee. All of the comments about language, grammar, notations will be taken into accounts in the revised version of the manuscript. The comments or questions about physics or unclear parts are answered in the attached document and the manuscript will be modified accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2762-AC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2762/egusphere-2023-2762-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adrien Pineau, 14 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 326 | 82 | 36 | 444 | 21 | 28 |
- HTML: 326
- PDF: 82
- XML: 36
- Total: 444
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 205 | 45 |
| Norway | 2 | 36 | 8 |
| China | 3 | 34 | 7 |
| Germany | 4 | 31 | 6 |
| France | 5 | 15 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 205
Adrien Pineau
Henriette Trollvik
Sveinung Olsen
Yngve Eilertsen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3027 KB) - Metadata XML