the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
First In Situ Measurements of the Prototype Tesseract Fluxgate Magnetometer on the ACES-II Low Sounding Rocket
Abstract. Ongoing innovation in next generation fluxgate magnetometry is important for enabling future investigations of space plasma, especially multi-spacecraft experimental studies of energy transport in the magnetosphere and the solar wind. Demonstrating the spaceflight capability of novel designs is an important step in the instrument development process; however, large-scale satellite missions are often unwilling to accept the risks of an instrument without flight heritage. The Tesseract – a novel fluxgate magnetometer sensor design-had an opportunity for an inaugural spaceflight demonstration on the ACES-II sounding rocket mission, which launched from Andøya Space Center in Andenes, Norway, in November 2022. Tesseract’s design takes advantage of a new racetrack core geometry to create a sensor that addresses some of the issues that contribute to instability in more traditional ring core designs. Here we present the design of a prototype fluxgate magnetometer based on the new Tesseract sensor, its preflight characteristics, and an evaluation of its inflight performance aboard ACES-II. We find that the magnetic field measured by Tesseract over the course of the flight was in strong agreement with both the onboard ACES II reference ring core fluxgate magnetometer and the predictions of a geomagnetic field model. The Tesseract based magnetometer measured signatures of field aligned currents and potential Alfvén wave activity as it crossed an active auroral arc, we conclude that it performed as expected. Tesseract will be flown on the TRACERS Small Explorers (SMEX) satellite mission as part of the MAGIC technology demonstration currently scheduled to launch in 2025.
-
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
(1739 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1739 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-189', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2024
The work is devoted to development and testing of new fluxgate magnetometer installed on-board of Acess-II sounding rocket. Both pre-flight and space testing of the instrument are described.
Temperature stability is an important factor of magnetometer operation, especially in the case of spacecraft on-board installation. Declared sensitivity temperature dependence of 13-17 ppm/deg is exactly a thermal expansion coefficient of feedback coils. Is it wholly satisfactory for this mission? There is no description of how this figure was measured. Moreover, temperature behavior of polynomial coefficients for non-linearity correction (which seem to be not dependent on feedback coils), has not been addressed at all. Your consideration on the subject would be relevant and instructive.
Line 35: “20 pT/Hz” should be 20 pT/sqrtHz
Line 211: “inside a single-axis four-layer mumetal magnetic shield (Figure 5a)” According to Fig.5 and its legend, it is “a three-layer mumetal magnetic shield”.
Line 223: “Robust linear regression was used to fit a linear trend to the noise floor from 0.05 to 1.0 Hz, and this trend was evaluated at 1 Hz” Consider “Robust linear regression was used to fit a linear trend from 0.05 to 1.0 Hz, and the noise floor was evaluated at 1 Hz”.
Line 245: Sensitivity figure for Z direction seems to be erroneous.
Line 302: “computationally highpass filtered below 1 Hz”. Should it be “over 1 Hz”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-189-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kenton Greene, 27 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-189/egusphere-2024-189-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kenton Greene, 27 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-189', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Feb 2024
The authors present the design of a prototype fluxgate magnetometer based in its pre-flight characteristics and an evaluation of its performance during a short flight aboard sounding rocket ACES-II. The paper is well written, understandable and an appropriate number of citations is included. The ability of the new magnetometer to perform geophysical magnetic field measurements in the space environment is clearly demonstrated.
General comments:
The primary (science) magnetometer, which is the main reference for the in-flight comparison, should be briefly discussed and relevant literature should be cited.
The pre-flight calibration of the three Euler angles of the rotation matrix and its accuracy should be discussed, as it is assumed to be the main cause of the difference between the prototype and the primary (science) magnetometer.
The section on in-flight performance would benefit from some improvements and/or clarifications:
- It is not clear for how long the magnetometer was actively measuring.
- It is said that a quiet period between 17:24:00 and 17:24:30 was used for the in-flight calibration, but not the entire 30 seconds are shown in Figure 6. What do the data look like before the “quiet period”?
- The measured and the modelled field obviously agree to within 25 nT RMS outside of the scientifically interesting period. What is the standard deviation of the difference within the mentioned crossing of the active auroral arc? The plots in Figure 6 do not indicate a big difference between the two phases.
- The performance discussion would benefit from plotting the difference between the prototype and science magnetometer to deepen the demonstration of the good match. The mentioned alignment mismatch between the two sensors could be calibrated based on the flight data which would further reduce the reported RMS deviation.
- A comparison of the high pass filtered data from both magnetometers would show that also the actual science event was measured correctly by the prototype sensor.
Specific comments:
Line 35: The instrumental noise of the MMS sensors in low range is less than 8 pT/sqrt(Hz).
Line 146: … to measure thermal electrons.
Line 231: … detailed science analysis of it will …
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-189-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kenton Greene, 01 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-189/egusphere-2024-189-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-189', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2024
The work is devoted to development and testing of new fluxgate magnetometer installed on-board of Acess-II sounding rocket. Both pre-flight and space testing of the instrument are described.
Temperature stability is an important factor of magnetometer operation, especially in the case of spacecraft on-board installation. Declared sensitivity temperature dependence of 13-17 ppm/deg is exactly a thermal expansion coefficient of feedback coils. Is it wholly satisfactory for this mission? There is no description of how this figure was measured. Moreover, temperature behavior of polynomial coefficients for non-linearity correction (which seem to be not dependent on feedback coils), has not been addressed at all. Your consideration on the subject would be relevant and instructive.
Line 35: “20 pT/Hz” should be 20 pT/sqrtHz
Line 211: “inside a single-axis four-layer mumetal magnetic shield (Figure 5a)” According to Fig.5 and its legend, it is “a three-layer mumetal magnetic shield”.
Line 223: “Robust linear regression was used to fit a linear trend to the noise floor from 0.05 to 1.0 Hz, and this trend was evaluated at 1 Hz” Consider “Robust linear regression was used to fit a linear trend from 0.05 to 1.0 Hz, and the noise floor was evaluated at 1 Hz”.
Line 245: Sensitivity figure for Z direction seems to be erroneous.
Line 302: “computationally highpass filtered below 1 Hz”. Should it be “over 1 Hz”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-189-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kenton Greene, 27 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-189/egusphere-2024-189-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kenton Greene, 27 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-189', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Feb 2024
The authors present the design of a prototype fluxgate magnetometer based in its pre-flight characteristics and an evaluation of its performance during a short flight aboard sounding rocket ACES-II. The paper is well written, understandable and an appropriate number of citations is included. The ability of the new magnetometer to perform geophysical magnetic field measurements in the space environment is clearly demonstrated.
General comments:
The primary (science) magnetometer, which is the main reference for the in-flight comparison, should be briefly discussed and relevant literature should be cited.
The pre-flight calibration of the three Euler angles of the rotation matrix and its accuracy should be discussed, as it is assumed to be the main cause of the difference between the prototype and the primary (science) magnetometer.
The section on in-flight performance would benefit from some improvements and/or clarifications:
- It is not clear for how long the magnetometer was actively measuring.
- It is said that a quiet period between 17:24:00 and 17:24:30 was used for the in-flight calibration, but not the entire 30 seconds are shown in Figure 6. What do the data look like before the “quiet period”?
- The measured and the modelled field obviously agree to within 25 nT RMS outside of the scientifically interesting period. What is the standard deviation of the difference within the mentioned crossing of the active auroral arc? The plots in Figure 6 do not indicate a big difference between the two phases.
- The performance discussion would benefit from plotting the difference between the prototype and science magnetometer to deepen the demonstration of the good match. The mentioned alignment mismatch between the two sensors could be calibrated based on the flight data which would further reduce the reported RMS deviation.
- A comparison of the high pass filtered data from both magnetometers would show that also the actual science event was measured correctly by the prototype sensor.
Specific comments:
Line 35: The instrumental noise of the MMS sensors in low range is less than 8 pT/sqrt(Hz).
Line 146: … to measure thermal electrons.
Line 231: … detailed science analysis of it will …
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-189-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kenton Greene, 01 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-189/egusphere-2024-189-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
273 | 130 | 30 | 433 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 273
- PDF: 130
- XML: 30
- Total: 433
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Scott R. Bounds
Robert M. Broadfoot
Connor Feltman
Samuel J. Hisel
Ryan M. Krauss
Amanda Lasko
Antonio Washington
David M. Miles
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1739 KB) - Metadata XML