4.5 Article

Separation of Spacecraft Noise From Geomagnetic Field Observations Through Density-Based Cluster Analysis and Compressive Sensing

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022JA030757

Keywords

magnetometer; noise cancellation; cocktail party problem; CubeSat; spacecraft; instrumentation

Funding

  1. NASA [80NSSC18K1240, 80NSSC19K0608]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a signal processing algorithm that uses density-based cluster analysis and compressive sensing to remove spacecraft magnetic noise. The algorithm does not require prior knowledge of the noise signals and has been validated through simulations and experiments.
The use of magnetometers for space exploration is inhibited by magnetic noise generated by spacecraft electrical systems. Mechanical booms are traditionally used to extend magnetometers away from noise sources. If a spacecraft is equipped with multiple magnetometers, signal processing algorithms can be used to compare magnetometer measurements and remove stray magnetic noise signals. We propose the use of density-based cluster analysis to identify spacecraft noise signals and compressive sensing to separate spacecraft noise from geomagnetic field data. This method assumes no prior knowledge of the number, location, or amplitude of noise signals, but assumes that they have minimal overlapping spectral properties. We demonstrate the validity of this algorithm by separating high latitude magnetic perturbations recorded by the low-Earth orbiting satellite, SWARM, from noise signals in simulation and in a laboratory experiment using a mock CubeSat apparatus. In the case of more noise sources than magnetometers, this problem is an instance of underdetermined blind source separation (UBSS). This work presents a UBSS signal processing algorithm to remove spacecraft noise and minimize the need for a mechanical boom.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available