CRaTER Characterization Data Products & Production Pipeline

1. CRaTER CharacterizationData Products &Production Pipeline • Larry Kepko • LKepko@bu.edu • Boston University Center for Space Physics • CRaTER PDR

2. Beam Facilities • 88” Cyclotron, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

3. Beam Facilities • NASA Space Radiation Laboratory at Brookhaven National Laboratory • Proposal for runs using the engineering model in Summer ‘06 submitted, currently under review.

4. Characterization • Characterization has 4 components: • Detectors. Characterize the response of the thin & thick detectors to particles of known composition and energy [LBL] • TEP. Probe the response of TEP to validate detector design [Mass. General] • EM System Performance. Characterize and validate detector response [LBL, BNL] • Full Telescope. Spot check and validate. [LBL, BNL] • Facilities in brackets are primary beamlines.

5. Detector Characterization • By exposing the detectors to beams of known energies, we can determine the response. Data From Detector Energy Deposited

6. Detector Characterization • Goal • Determine detector response (both thick and thin) to incident particles of known energies; generate look-up tables. • Plan • Initial testing of flight prototype detectors (289 and 142 um) at LBL/benchtop to validate detector design [begun]. • Additional tests 10/9 • Testing of EM detectors at LBL and BNL over wide range of energies and species [Spring/Summer ‘06].

7. Detector Characterization • We have begun testing at LBL detectors similar to those to be used in CRaTER. Counts Channel # (Energy)

8. TEP Characterization • Goal • Inform science team about projected system performance and feed into any necessary pre-CDR design adjustments of EM. • Plan • 54 and 27 cm TEP pieces, 140 and 1000 micron detectors • Beam experiments at Mass General (70-230 MeV protons) [Sun 11/6/05] • Beam experiments at LBL (ions/protons) [TBD]

9. EM System Performance • Goal • Assess performance of EM telescope and end-to-end data flow through system • Plan • EM delivery to BU (April 2006) • Initial beam runs at LBL (April 2006) [details on next slide] • Beam runs at BNL (Spring/Summer 2006) • 300, 600, 1000 MeV Fe

10. LBL EM Runs • 55 MeV protons • w/o TEP, exercise detector stack • w/ TEP will check D1/2/3/4 or D 6/5/4/3 but not entire stack • 10 MeV/nucleon ions • 4-d motion table will allow angular response of telescope • $1000/hour • Will try to piggyback on Aerospace whenever possible.

11. FM System Calibration • Goal • Characterize FM to verify comprehensive EM assessments. Spot check FS to verify identical response with FM • Plan • FM/FS Environmental complete by June 2007 • Characterization at LBL [July 2007] • Additional run at BNL to confirm high-Z response [August 2007] • Schedule margin allows for additional testing in September/October 2007 prior to delivery.

12. CRaTER Data Products

13. LRO MOC Primary/secondary science Housekeeping Validation To Level 1 Processing Level 0 sFTP CRaTER SOC PDS L0 Archive

14. Level 0 Data Products

15. Level 1 Depacket, create 1-s data LRO MOC sFTP Orbit & Attitude CRaTER SOC Calibration Files PDS L1 Archive To Level 2 Processing

16. Level 1 Data Products

17. Calculate Si LET Level 2 Convert to energy deposited QL Plots Events of Interest PDS L2 Archive To Level 3 Processing

18. Level 2 Data Products The CRaTER Level 2 data product is responsive to LRO Level 1 requirement (RLEP-LRO-M10 & RLEP-LRO-M20).

19. Level 3 Region Separation Magnetotail Foreshock GCR SEP Events To Level 4 Processing

20. Level 3 Data Products

21. Level 4 Calculate LET in TEP Modeling Community GCR Spectrum Calculate Particle Flux

22. Timetables • Level 2 data produced immediately upon verification of Level 1 data. • Only involves application of pre-flight calibration curves and simple LET calculations. • GCR LET spectrum requires time (low count rates) • The longer the better • Nominally 1/3 of data appropriate for GCR analysis • SEPs can contaminate and must be removed.