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.
Invited Article: Data analysis of the Floating Potential Measurement Unit aboard the International Space Station
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.3116085
/content/aip/journal/rsi/80/4/10.1063/1.3116085
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/80/4/10.1063/1.3116085
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

FPMU conceptual instrument layout.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Histogram of the number of invalid checksums when recalculated over the received page on the ground station. A value of 0 means all seven checksums were valid and the page was received uncorrupted.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Noise in the data set of all four FPMU instruments due to telemetry errors. Median filtering mitigates most of the “spikes.”

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Noise in the WLP and the NLP curves possibly due to interference from some other apparatus or activity onboard the ISS. Both curves are from when ISS was in eclipse conditions. The difference in floating potential observed in WLP curves is because of ISS charging due to VxB effect.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Four consecutive curves from the WLP and the NLP. There is no hysteresis in the internally heated WLP, while minimal hysteresis exists in the NLP indicating presence of some contamination.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Fits for and to the electron retardation region using Eq. (7). Both the WLP and the NLP curves are for the same second of data. The and fits for the WLP curve were and 2.12 V, while for the NLP curve were and 2.01 V, respectively.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Comparison of measured curves with the curves generated by analytical theory. The best match is acquired with a least-squares fit of Eq. (3) to and . It is important to note that the fit value of is different from that proposed by OML theory.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

A single admittance vs frequency profile from the PIP data set.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Comparison of densities derived from different instruments.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Ground locations from where the data were assimilated into the USU-GAIM model run. The filled squares are GPS ground stations and empty squares are ionosondes.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

The first row shows FPMU floating potential as measured by the FPP, the WLP, and the NLP. The second row compares the ion density derived from the WLP with density from USU-GAIM and IRI model runs. The third row compares the WLP and the NLP derived temperatures with IRI model results. The fourth row shows the ISS latitude and longitude.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

The caption is the same as for Fig. 11.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/rsi/80/4/10.1063/1.3116085
2009-04-17
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Invited Article: Data analysis of the Floating Potential Measurement Unit aboard the International Space Station
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/80/4/10.1063/1.3116085
10.1063/1.3116085
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM