Spacecraft charging analysis with the implicit particle-in-cell code iPic3D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first results on the analysis of spacecraft charging with the implicit particle-in-cell code iPic3D, designed for running on massively parallel supercomputers. The numerical algorithm is presented, highlighting the implementation of the electrostatic solver and the immersed boundary algorithm; the latter which creates the possibility to handle complex spacecraft geometries. As a first step in the verification process, a comparison is made between the floating potential obtained with iPic3D and with Orbital Motion Limited theory for a spherical particle in a uniform stationary plasma. Second, the numerical model is verified for a CubeSat benchmark by comparing simulation results with those of PTetra for space environment conditions with increasing levels of complexity. In particular, we consider spacecraft charging from plasma particle collection, photoelectron and secondary electron emission. The influence of a background magnetic field on the floating potential profile near the spacecraft is also considered. Although the numerical approaches in iPic3D and PTetra are rather different, good agreement is found between the two models, raising the level of confidence in both codes to predict and evaluate the complex plasma environment around spacecraft.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".