P51C-3963:
Cross Calibration of Omnidirectional Orbital Neutron Detectors of Lunar Prospector (LP) and Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND) by Monte Carlo Simulation

Friday, 19 December 2014
Joseph Murray1, Jao Jang SU1, Roald Sagdeev1 and Gordon Chin2, (1)University of Maryland College Park, Physics, College Park, MD, United States, (2)NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 693, Greenbelt, MD, United States
Abstract:
Introduction:Monte Carlo (MC) simulations have been used to investigate neutron production and leakage from the lunar surface to assess the composition of the lunar soil [1-3]. Orbital measurements of lunar neutron flux have been made by the Lunar Prospector Neutron Spectrometer (LPNS)[4] of the Lunar Prospector mission and the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND)[5] of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission. While both are cylindrical helium-3 detectors, LEND’s SETN (Sensor EpiThermal Neutrons) instrument is shorter, with double the helium-3 pressure than that of LPNS. The two instruments therefore have different angular sensitivities and neutron detection efficiencies. Furthermore, the Lunar Prospector’s spin-stabilized design makes its detection efficiency latitude-dependent, while the SETN instrument faces permanently downward toward the lunar surface. We use the GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation code[6] to investigate the leakage lunar neutron energy spectrum, which follows a power law of the form E-0.9 in the epithermal energy range, and the signals detected by LPNS and SETN in the LP and LRO mission epochs, respectively. Using the lunar neutron flux reconstructed for LPNS epoch, we calculate the signal that would have been observed by SETN at that time. The subsequent deviation from the actual signal observed during the LEND epoch is due to the significantly higher intensity of Galactic Cosmic Rays during the anomalous Solar Minimum of 2009-2010.

References: [1] W. C. Feldman, et al., (1998) Science Vol. 281 no. 5382 pp. 1496-1500. [2] Gasnault, O., et al.,
(2000) J. Geophys. Res., 105(E2), 4263–4271. [3] Little, R. C., et al. (2003), J. Geophys. Res., 108(E5), 5046. [4]
W. C. Feldman, et al., (1999) Nucl. Inst. And Method in Phys. Res. A 422, [5] M. L. Litvak, et al., (2012) J.
Geophys. Res. 117, E00H32 [6] J. Allison, et al, (2006) IEEE Trans. on Nucl Sci, Vol 53, No 1.