1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
f
Theory and experiments characterizing hypervelocity impact plasmas on biased spacecraft materials
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aip/journal/pop/20/3/10.1063/1.4794331
1.
1. R. D. Caswell, N. McBride, and A. Taylor, Int. J. Impact Eng. 17, 139 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0734-743X(95)99843-G
2.
2. N. McBride and J. A. M. McDonnell, Planetary Space Sci. 47, 1005 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00023-9
3.
3. H. Dietzel, G. Neukum, and P. Rauser, J. Geophys. Res. 77, 1375, doi:10.1029/JB077i008p01375 (1972).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB077i008p01375
4.
4. P. R. Ratcliff, M. J. Burchell, M. J. Cole, T. W. Murphy, and F. Allahdadi, Int. J. Impact Eng. 20, 663 (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(97)87453-2
5.
5. L. Foschini, Europhys. Lett. (EPL) 43, 226 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/epl/i1998-00344-9
6.
6. R. Bianchi, F. Capaccioni, P. Cerroni, M. Coradini, E. Flamini, P. Hurren, G. Martelli, and P. N. Smith, Nature (London) 308, 830 (1984).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/308830a0
7.
7. B. Jean and T. L. Rollins, AIAA J. 8, 1742 (1970).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.5984
8.
8. M. J. Starks, D. L. Cooke, B. K. Dichter, L. C. Chhabildas, W. D. Reinhart, and T. F. Thornhill III, Int. J. Impact Eng. 33, 781 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.09.044
9.
9. K. Maki, T. Takano, A. Fujiwara, and A. Yamori, Adv. Space Res. 34, 1085 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.032
10.
10. E. C. Whipple, Rep. Prog. Phys. 44, 1197 (1981).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/44/11/002
11.
11. F. J. F. Osborne and M. A. Kasha, Can. J. Phys. 45, 263 (1967).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/p67-027
12.
12. F. Melandsø and J. Goree, Phys. Rev. E 52, 5312 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.52.5312
13.
13. A. Czechowski and I. Mann, Astrophys. J. 714, 89 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/89
14.
14. E. Grün, B. Gustafson, I. Mann, M. Baguhl, G. Morfill, P. Staubach, A. Taylor, and H. A. Zook, Astron. Astrophys. 286, 915 (1994).
15.
15. Z. Ceplecha, J. Borovička, W. G. Elford, D. O. ReVelle, R. L. Hawkes, V. Í. Porubčan, and M. Šimek, Space Sci. Rev. 84, 327 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005069928850
16.
16. S. Close, P. Brown, M. Campbell-Brown, M. Oppenheim, and P. Colestock, Icarus 186, 547 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2006.09.007
17.
17. P. Brown, R. E. Spalding, D. O. ReVelle, E. Tagliaferri, and S. P. Worden, Nature (London) 420, 294 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01238
18.
18. D. Janches, S. Close, and J. T. Fentzke, Icarus 193, 105 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.022
19.
19. D. J. Kessler and B. G. Cour-Palais, J. Geophys. Res. 83, 2637, doi:10.1029/JA083iA06p02637 (1978).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637
20.
20. S. Drapatz and K. W. Michel, Z. Naturforsch. A 29, 870 (1974).
21.
21. K. Hornung, Y. G. Malama, and K. S. Kestenboim, Astrophys. Space Sci. 274, 355 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026553502542
22.
22. S. Close, P. Colestock, L. Cox, M. Kelley, and N. Lee, J. Geophys. Res. 115, A12328, doi:10.1029/2010JA015921 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015921
23.
23. A. Mocker, S. Bugiel, S. Auer, G. Baust, K. Drake, K. Fiege, E. Grün, F. Heckmann, S. Helfert, J. K. Hillier, S. Kempf, G. Matt, K. Otto, F. Postberg, H.-P. Röser, Z. Sternovsky, and R. Srama, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 095111 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3637461
24.
24. R. A. Heelis and W. B. Hanson, Measurement Techniques Space Plasmas: Particles, Geophysical Monograph 102 (American Geophysical Union, 1998), p. 61.
25.
25. A. J. Dekker, “Advances in research and applications,” in Solid State Physics, edited by F. Seitz and D. Turnbull (Academic, 1958), Vol. 6, pp. 251311.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pop/20/3/10.1063/1.4794331
Loading

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

Projectile distribution, color-coded for theoretical charge production using the relation . Note the strong dependence of speed and mass.

Image of FIG. 2.

Click to view

FIG. 2.

Impact targets used in the experiment.

Image of FIG. 3.

Click to view

FIG. 3.

Sensor configuration within the test chamber.

Image of FIG. 4.

Click to view

FIG. 4.

Photos of the plasma sensors in the chamber, from top to bottom: (a)RPAs, (b) FPA-theta, and (c) FPA-range.

Image of FIG. 5.

Click to view

FIG. 5.

Simultaneous measurements from a single impact of a 3.9 fg projectile on −1 kV tungsten at 35.3 km/s.

Image of FIG. 6.

Click to view

FIG. 6.

(a) Parameters in the SPM model. (b) Initial speed distribution causes the measured current peak to spread out.

Image of FIG. 7.

Click to view

FIG. 7.

(a) Geometry of plasma expansion cone and initial shape of discretized plasma shells. (b) Spherical cap geometry and internal electric field.

Image of FIG. 8.

Click to view

FIG. 8.

Measurement of six ion species from a 3.4 fg projectile traveling 35.2 km/s impacting tungsten biased at +1000 V, with SPM output.

Image of FIG. 9.

Click to view

FIG. 9.

Impacts on tungsten target. The red trace is from the RPA placed 85 mm from the impact point, and the blue trace is from the RPA placed 65 mm from the impact point. Left to right: same impact as in Figure 8 ; 0 V target with a 2.3 fg projectile impacting at 45.3 km/s; −1000 V target with a 27 fg projectile impacting at 3.5 km/s.

Image of FIG. 10.

Click to view

FIG. 10.

A 4.55 km/s impact of a 5.6 pg projectile on −300 V tungsten. The negative ion signal is indicated by the orange arrows.

Image of FIG. 11.

Click to view

FIG. 11.

Impacts on the −300 V spacecraft targets. The presence of negative ions is highly dependent on target material. The projectile masses are: (a) 0.59, (b) 6.9, (c) 13, (d) 7.6, and (e) 6.7 fg, respectively. The impact speeds are (a)59.2, (b) 18.7, (c) 21.6, (d) 18.3, and (e) 19.4 km/s, respectively.

Image of FIG. 12.

Click to view

FIG. 12.

Fractional composition of impact plasma from tungsten impacts as a function of impact speed.

Image of FIG. 13.

Click to view

FIG. 13.

Overlaid RPA measurements of impact plasma composition as a function of impact speed for (a) +1000 V tungsten, (b) +100 V uncoated solar cell, and (c) +100 V conductive OSR, color-coded for impact speed.

Image of FIG. 14.

Click to view

FIG. 14.

(a) Simulation with composition and temperature computed by SPM model. (b) Same composition with temperatures reduced by factor of 10.

Tables

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table I.

Summary of impact measurements on the materials discussed in this paper.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pop/20/3/10.1063/1.4794331
2013-03-04
2014-04-19

Abstract

Space weather including solar activity and background plasma sets up spacecraft conditions that can magnify the threat from hypervelocity impacts. Hypervelocity impactors include both meteoroids, traveling between 11 and 72 km/s, and orbital debris, with typical impact speeds of 10 km/s. When an impactor encounters a spacecraft, its kinetic energy is converted over a very short timescale into energy of vaporization and ionization, resulting in a small, dense plasma. This plasma can produce radio frequency (RF) emission, causing electrical anomalies within the spacecraft. In order to study this phenomenon, we conducted ground-based experiments to study hypervelocity impact plasmas using a Van de Graaff dust accelerator. Iron projectiles ranging from 10−16 g to 10−11 g were fired at speeds of up to 70 km/s into a variety of target materials under a range of surface charging conditions representative of space weather effects. Impact plasmas associated with bare metal targets as well as spacecraft materials were studied. Plasma expansion models were developed to determine the composition and temperature of the impact plasma, shedding light on the plasma dynamics that can lead to spacecraft electrical anomalies. The dependence of these plasma properties on target material, impact speed, and surface charge was analyzed. Our work includes three major results. First, the initial temperature of the impact plasma is at least an order of magnitude lower than previously reported, providing conditions more favorable for sustained RF emission. Second, the composition of impact plasmas from glass targets, unlike that of impact plasmas from tungsten, has low dependence on impact speed, indicating a charge production mechanism that is significant down to orbital debris speeds. Finally, negative ion formation has a strong dependence on target material. These new results can inform the design and operation of spacecraft in order to mitigate future impact-related space weather anomalies and failures.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aip/journal/pop/20/3/1.4794331.html;jsessionid=6690r44dochji.x-aip-live-01?itemId=/content/aip/journal/pop/20/3/10.1063/1.4794331&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aip/journal/pop
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Theory and experiments characterizing hypervelocity impact plasmas on biased spacecraft materials
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pop/20/3/10.1063/1.4794331
10.1063/1.4794331
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM