Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025;221(1):21.
doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01147-9. Epub 2025 Feb 14.

The TRACERS Analyzer for Cusp Electrons

Affiliations
Review

The TRACERS Analyzer for Cusp Electrons

Jasper S Halekas et al. Space Sci Rev. 2025.

Abstract

The Analyzer for Cusp Electrons (ACE) instruments on the Tandem Reconnection and Cusp Electrodynamics Reconnaissance Satellites (TRACERS) mission provide measurements of electron velocity distribution functions from two closely spaced spacecraft in a low Earth orbit that passes through the magnetospheric cusp. The precipitating and upward-going electrons provide a sensitive probe of the magnetic field line topology and electrostatic potential structure, as well as revealing dynamic processes. ACE measurements contribute to the top-level TRACERS goals of characterizing the spatial and temporal variation of magnetic reconnection at the terrestrial magnetopause and its relationship to dynamic structures in the cusp. ACE utilizes a classic hemispheric electrostatic analyzer on a spinning platform to provide full angular coverage with 10 degree by 7 degree resolution. ACE can measure electrons over an energy range of 20-13,500 electron volts, with fractional energy resolution of 19%. ACE provides 50 ms cadence measurements of the electron velocity distribution, enabling sub-kilometer spatial resolution of cusp boundaries and other structures.

Keywords: Electrons; Electrostatic analyzer; Magnetosphere; TRACERS mission.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing InterestsThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ACE block diagram, showing basic electrical functions and interfaces
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Electrostatic optics simulation for ACE, showing a projection of representative simulated 3-d electron trajectories through a cylindrically symmetric potential grid
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Simulated relative sensitivity for ACE, showing integrated relative sensitivity vs energy, instrument elevation angle, and instrument azimuthal angle in the top row, and corresponding 2-d response functions in the bottom row
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Exploded view of ACE mechanical design, showing (from left to right) back panel, electronics assembly (with anode interface assembly on top), enclosure and dog house, hemisphere assembly, and light trap assembly
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Mechanical elements of ACE, including light trap assembly (A), hemisphere assembly top (B) and bottom (C), anode interface assembly with MCPs installed on top of the electronics stack (D), electronics assembly side view with optics and red tag cover installed (E), back panel with purge connected (F), assembled instrument from above (G), assembled instrument from side with dog house removed (H), and assembled instrument with thermal treatments (I)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Electrical elements of ACE, including anode board (A), anode interface assembly (B), charge-amp board top (C) and bottom (D), stepper board (E), stack board (F), digital board top (G) and bottom (H), and low voltage power supply board (I)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
ACE testing activities, including pre-calibration (A), vibration (B), thermal vacuum (C and D), pre-thermal vacuum bakeout (E), and EMI/EMC (F)
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Data from ACE FM1 thermal vacuum testing, showing angular and energy response to counts from Ni-63 radioactive source, and digital board temperature monitor readback
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Data from ACE FM1 and FM2 final calibrations, showing integrated relative sensitivity vs energy, FWHM 2-d response vs energy and elevation angle, and comparison of FWHM 2-d response to simulation results (purple shading and orange contour), for 11 different azimuthal angles
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Data from ACE FM1 final calibration, showing the azimuthal angle response to a mono-energetic electron beam with a fixed energy and elevation angle
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Data from ACE FM2 final calibration, showing the azimuthal angle response to a mono-energetic electron beam with a fixed energy and two different elevation angles
Fig. 12
Fig. 12
Energy spectra from ACE FM1 final calibration, showing the response to a mono-energetic electron beam with energies of 20–9500 eV at a fixed azimuthal and elevation angle (inset shows expanded view of low-energy portion of sweep)

References

    1. Carlson CW, Curtis DW, Paschmann G, Michael W (1982) An instrument for rapidly measuring plasma distribution functions with high resolution. Adv Space Res 2(7):67–70. 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90151-X
    1. Chaston CC, Carlson CW, McFadden JP, Ergun RE, Strangeway RJ (2007) How important are dispersive Alfvén waves for auroral particle acceleration? Geophys Res Lett 34(7):L07101. 10.1029/2006GL029144
    1. Fuselier SA, Kletzing CA, Petrinec SM, Trattner KJ, George D, Bounds SR, Sawyer RP, Bonnell JW, Burch JL, Giles BL, Strangeway RJ (2022) Multiple reconnection X-lines at the magnetopause and overlapping cusp ion injections. J Geophys Res Space Phys 127(5):2022–030354. 10.1029/2022JA030354
    1. Halekas JS, Taylor ER, Dalton G, Johnson G, Curtis DW, McFadden JP, Mitchell DL, Lin RP, Jakosky BM (2015) The Solar Wind Ion Analyzer for MAVEN. Space Sci Rev 195(1–4):125–151. 10.1007/s11214-013-0029-z
    1. Kletzing CA, Hu S (2001) Alfvén wave generated electron time dispersion. Geophys Res Lett 28(4):693–696. 10.1029/2000GL012179

LinkOut - more resources