Cross-comparison of spacecraft-environment interaction model predictions applied to Solar Probe Plus near perihelion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five spacecraft-plasma models are used to simulate the interaction of a simplified geometry Solar Probe Plus (SPP) satellite with the space environment under representative solar wind conditions near perihelion. By considering similarities and differences between results obtained with different numerical approaches under well defined conditions, the consistency and validity of our models can be assessed. The impact on model predictions of physical effects of importance in the SPP mission is also considered by comparing results obtained with and without these effects. Simulation results are presented and compared with increasing levels of complexity in the physics of interaction between solar environment and the SPP spacecraft. The comparisons focus particularly on spacecraft floating potentials, contributions to the currents collected and emitted by the spacecraft, and on the potential and density spatial profiles near the satellite. The physical effects considered include spacecraft charging, photoelectron and secondary electron emission, and the presence of a background magnetic field. Model predictions obtained with our different computational approaches are found to be in agreement within 2% when the same physical processes are taken into account and treated similarly. The comparisons thus indicate that, with the correct description of important physical effects, our simulation models should have the required skill to predict details of satellite-plasma interaction physics under relevant conditions, with a good level of confidence. Our models concur in predicting a negative floating potential Vfl∼−10V for SPP at perihelion. They also predict a “saturated emission regime” whereby most emitted photo- and secondary electron will be reflected by a potential barrier near the surface, back to the spacecraft where they will be recollected.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".