<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GI</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GI</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2193-0864</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gi-11-307-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title><?xmltex \hack{\vskip-1mm}?>Tesseract – a high-stability, low-noise fluxgate sensor <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> designed for constellation applications</article-title><alt-title>Tesseract – a high-stability magnetometer for applications on constellation missions</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Tesseract -- a high-stability magnetometer for applications on constellation missions}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{K. Greene et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Greene</surname><given-names>Kenton</given-names></name>
          <email>kenton-greene@uiowa.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hansen</surname><given-names>Christian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Narod</surname><given-names>B. Barry</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Dvorsky</surname><given-names>Richard</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Miles</surname><given-names>David M.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4714-5966</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
IA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Kenton Greene (kenton-greene@uiowa.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>23</day><month>August</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>307</fpage><lpage>321</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>19</day><month>April</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>April</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>19</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 Kenton Greene et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022.html">This article is available from https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e127">Accurate high-precision magnetic field measurements are a
significant challenge for many applications, including constellation missions studying space plasmas. Instrument stability and orthogonality are essential
to enable meaningful comparison between disparate satellites in a
constellation without extensive cross-calibration efforts. Here we describe
the design and characterization of Tesseract – a fluxgate magnetometer
sensor designed for low-noise, high-stability constellation applications.
Tesseract's design takes advantage of recent developments in the
manufacturing of custom low-noise fluxgate cores. Six of these custom racetrack fluxgate cores are securely and compactly mounted within a single
solid three-axis symmetric base. Tesseract's feedback windings are
configured as a four-square Merritt coil to create a large homogenous
magnetic null inside the sensor where the fluxgate cores are held in a near-zero field, regardless of the ambient magnetic field, to improve the
reliability of the core magnetization cycle. A Biot–Savart simulation is used to optimize the homogeneity of the field generated by the feedback Merritt
coils and was verified experimentally to be homogeneous within 0.42 % along the racetrack cores' axes. The thermal stability of the sensor's
feedback windings is measured using an insulated container filled with dry
ice inside a coil system. The sensitivity over temperature of the feedback
windings is found to be between 13 and 17 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The sensor's three axes maintain orthogonality to within
at most 0.015<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over a temperature range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Tesseract's cores achieve a magnetic noise floor of 5 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz. Tesseract will be flight demonstrated on the
ACES-II sounding rockets, currently scheduled to launch in late 2022 and
again aboard the TRACERS satellite mission as part of the MAGIC technology
demonstration which is currently scheduled to launch in 2023.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e210">Constellation satellite missions have an important role in the future of
space plasma science. The NASA Heliophysics Science and Technology Roadmap
for 2014–2033 states that a driver of scientific discovery will come from a constellation mission of 30 or more spacecraft (Heliophysics Roadmap 2014).
Recent missions such as Cluster (Balogh et al., 2001), Swarm (Merayo et al.,
2008), Space Technology 5 (Slavin et al., 2008), Time History of Events and
Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (Auster et al., 2008) and the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (Torbert et al., 2016) have successfully
flown constellations of three to five spacecraft and have made significant
contributions to the understanding of solar wind and magnetospheric physics
(Ganushkina et al., 2017; Nakariakov et al., 2016, and references therein). The environmental conditions experienced over the course of these magnetospheric constellation missions are representative for almost all
spaceborne magnetometers; they are subject to a wide range of magnetic fields (low field at apogee, high field at perigee), radiation exposures, and temperature changes due to eclipse crossings.</p>
      <p id="d1e213">Recent developments in nanosatellite technology promise to provide a
platform for the future of constellation missions at a low cost
(Bandyopadhyay et al., 2015). Such a nanosatellite constellation mission
could accurately resolve and characterize the spatial and temporal evolution
of magnetic fluctuations that are indicative of larger-scale magnetospheric processes, such as plasma waves, field-aligned currents, and plasma transport at various scales. However, constructing a magnetic sensor with sufficiently
small mass and volume to be accommodated on a nanosatellite while still maintaining the instrumental accuracy and precision required for a
magnetospheric constellation mission is not a trivial task. As the size of a
fluxgate sensor is reduced, it becomes increasingly difficult to preserve
the stability required for reliable multi-point cross-comparisons. This
presents a significant challenge for the use of nanosatellites on
constellation missions. The 2015 NASA Technology Roadmap has noted the
importance of addressing the challenge of “high measurement stability to
allow inter-satellite calibration” to enable “high-stability magnetic
field measurements that can be made in distributed systems” (2015 NASA
Technology Roadmap 8.3.1.3).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>1.1</label><title>Fluxgate sensor stability</title>
      <p id="d1e223">Fluxgate magnetometers do not measure the magnetic field absolutely and
therefore must be calibrated in order to make accurate measurements.
However, the calibration parameters sensitivity, orthogonality, and offset vary with changes in temperature or over time. Fluxgate stability is the degree
to which these calibration parameters remain constant. Fluxgate stability is
critically important for a magnetospheric constellation mission, as it
enables comparison of disparate magnetic measurements without the need for
intensive cross-calibration. However, it remains poorly understood and is not explicitly addressed by many authors in the literature. Fluxgate offsets
are thought to originate primarily from the cores and driving electronics
(Ripka et al., 2014), while changes in sensitivity and orthogonality are
caused predominately by changes in the geometry of the sensor (Acuña et al.,
1978; Miles et al., 2017). In this paper, we are concerned with the
stability of the sensor. Factors suspected of degrading a fluxgate sensor's
stability include an inhomogeneous magnetic null (Ripka, 1992) and skewing
of the axes due to mechanical and thermal strain (Primdahl, 1979).</p>
      <p id="d1e226">Fluxgate magnetometers (Primdahl, 1979) measure the static and low-frequency
vector magnetic field by modulating or gating the local magnetic flux and
measuring the induced electromagnetic force (EMF) in a sense winding. A ferromagnetic core, periodically driven into magnetic saturation at
frequency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, is used to gate the local field, thereby inducing a second
harmonic (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) signal due to the nonlinear magnetic permeability of the core
as it enters magnetic saturation twice per cycle. In this paper, we will be
discussing only second harmonic fluxgates. In many instruments, including
that presented here, magnetic feedback is used to null the magnetic field in the sensor, which linearizes and extends the measurement range of the instrument and is thought to improve overall fluxgate stability (Primdahl
and Jensen, 1982). Our magnetic sensors that are nulled on two axes, such as the CASSIOPE/e-POP fluxgate which maintained a sensitivity stability of
approximately 18 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., Wallis et al., 2015; Miles et al., 2013), outperform our sensors zeroed in only a single component (i.e., Narod and Bennest, 1990; Acuña et al., 1978) which achieved a stability of
26 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the temperature range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Thus, we hypothesize that a null on all three axes will
further improve stability compared with one- or two-axis nulled sensor designs.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>1.2</label><title>Current state of high-stability constellation fluxgate sensors</title>
      <p id="d1e316">Recent constellation missions have increasingly focused on flying three-axis compensated sensors in the interest of maximizing instrumental stability.
However, sensor designs that have flown on past constellation missions have
been constrained to accommodating a traditional one-inch diameter ring-core geometry ferromagnetic core.</p>
      <p id="d1e319">Potentially the most stable magnetospheric field fluxgate measurements to
date were taken with the Compact Spherical Coil (CSC) Sensor aboard Swarm
which implements a nested three-axis feedback coil wound on a MACOR shell to create a very homogenous three-axis null at the locations of the cores. From Primdahl and Jenson (1982), we estimate that the CSC's feedback coils
hold their ring cores in a field that deviates from uniformity by 1.5 %. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, 500 g CSC sensor has maintained a
sensitivity stability over temperature of 10 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a very high axis stability of 0.002<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
while achieving a noise floor of 6.6 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Merayo et al.,
2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e407">The THEMIS mission incorporated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, 75 g,
low-mass fluxgate sensors that achieved a sensitivity stability of 22 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, an axis stability within 0.017<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and a noise of 10 pT Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Auster
et al., 2008). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">42.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">48.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, 88 g
Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission Direct Fluxgate instrument achieved a sensitivity stability over temperature of 30 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, an axis stability of about 0.03<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and a noise floor of 8 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Russell et al., 2016). Notably, the temperature-dependent sensitivity can be corrected to first order by fluxgate electronics using a compensated feedback current (Primdahl, 1970;
Acuña et al., 1978; Miles et al., 2017); however, no equivalent
compensation exists for orthogonality. In general, smaller temperature-dependent sensitivity is desirable, but smaller orthogonality dependence is more critical.</p>
      <p id="d1e573">Future constellation missions, such as the Geospace Dynamics Constellation (Pfaff, 2016), MagneToRE (Maruca et al., 2021), and NanoSWARM
(Garrick-Bethell et al., 2021), promise to build on the success of these constellation magnetometers, and the continued development of increasingly
precise, robust, magnetic field instruments remains an important means in these efforts.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS3">
  <label>1.3</label><title>Current state of miniaturized fluxgate sensors</title>
      <p id="d1e585">Nanosatellites as a platform for magnetospheric measurements are an emerging
topic in the literature. Some tend to focus on miniaturizing traditional
fluxgate magnetometer designs for CubeSat applications without overly
compromising their measurement capability (e.g., Ripka, 2003, and references therein). Recent missions, such as Dellingr and ExAlta1, have implemented
miniaturized, boom-deployed fluxgate magnetometers on nanosatellites. The
Dellingr nanosatellite flew a very small 19 g fluxgate magnetometer with a
noise floor of 120 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Kepko et al., 2017). The ExAlta1 CubeSat flew a 47 g miniaturized fluxgate sensor with a noise floor of 150 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Miles et al., 2016). However, these miniature
instruments typically sacrifice noise and stability in the interest of small
size. With a sensitivity stability poorer than 50 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, these
sensors function primarily as variometers. If used in a constellation
setting, measurements from disparate sensors would be far less comparable
than those from a previous constellation mission without complex and time-consuming cross-calibration. One of the best small sensors to date appears to be the Small Magnetometer in Low-mass Experiment (SMILE): a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, 40 g cubic sensor based on three rod cores
within a three-axis feedback winding, which achieved a thermal sensitivity
stability of 11 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, an axis stability better than 0.02<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and 30 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Forslund
et al., 2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS4">
  <label>1.4</label><title>Tesseract sensor overview</title>
      <p id="d1e741">Like the CSC and SMILE sensors, Tesseract's feedback windings create a
three-axis “magnetic null” inside the sensor where the fluxgate cores are
held in the near-zero field. This ensures that the cores do not exceed their linear sensitivity region regardless of the magnitude of the ambient
magnetic field (Primdahl and Jensen, 1982). An inhomogeneous magnetic null
at the cores is thought to contribute to degradation of the stability of a fluxgate's offset (Ripka, 1992), sensitivity (Korepanov and Marusenkov, 2012),
and orthogonality (Petrucha et al., 2015).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e746"><bold>(a)</bold> A high-fidelity prototype of the Tesseract sensor has been constructed for testing in preparation for MAGIC: a technology demonstration
of the TRACERS satellite mission's Tesseract feedback coils is arranged in a three-axis four-loop Merritt coil which is expected to create a large homogenous null region in the sensor. Tesseract's feedback coils are wound
on a common base of 30 % glass-filled Torlon. <bold>(b)</bold> A two-axis null ring-core sensor design based on Miles et al. (2013) was used in the
testing described in Sect. 3 and is shown for comparison.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e760">Here, we present the design and characterization of Tesseract: a
high-stability fluxgate magnetometer for constellation missions. The
Tesseract sensor's three-axis feedback windings are arranged in a
four-square Merritt coil, which creates a proportionally larger homogeneous
region than the Helmholtz coil for the same external volume (Merritt et al., 1983), allowing it to accommodate more cores (six instead of three). The idea of
more complex feedback winding is not new. Designs such as Primdahl and
Jensen (1982), Auster (2008), and Chulliat (2009) have used different methods of stacking concentric circular coils to create a three-axis null sensor. A
study by Petrucha et al. (2015) experimented with a laboratory prototype sensor
that used a Merritt coil feedback topology with ring geometry cores.
Tesseract's design draws inspiration from the aforementioned SMILE sensor
(Forslund et al., 2008), which used three equally spaced square feedback
coils and a parallel rod sensor in each axis to create a cube-shaped, three-axis nulled sensor. Tesseract's Merritt coil feedback winding has been
optimized to hold six racetrack cores within a highly homogeneous null field
(deviations from the average of less than 0.42 %), which allows for a reproducible magnetization of the ferromagnetic cores. This reproducibility
is designed to improve the measurement stability (Ripka et al., 2014; Korepanov and
Marusenkov, 2012) and linearity (Brauer et al., 1997) of the sensor.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e767">The Tesseract sensor's specifications as measured in the laboratory compared with the specifications of a more traditional ring-core sensor
design described in Miles et al. (2013). Tesseract is marginally larger than the
Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor design but has much higher axis stability and
magnetic feedback homogeneity, which are associated with higher instrumental
stability. The uncompensated stability and orthogonality angles are both measured from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameters</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Tesseract sensor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ring-core sensor</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensor dimensions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensor mass</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">340 g</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">287 g</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Feedback power consumption at the 65 000 nT earth field</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">29.7 mW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.4 mW</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Noise floor of cores</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Uncompensated stability over temperature<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13–17 ppm per degree</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11–26 ppm per degree</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Axis orthogonality angles<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.015</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.09<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Feedback field homogeneity at cores</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.62</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e789"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> In the range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> C.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1059">Tesseract's custom low-noise racetrack geometry cores are securely and compactly mounted within a single solid three-axis symmetric base of 30 %
glass-filled Torlon, reducing the potential for mechanical strains due to
uneven coefficients of linear expansion and reducing the tendency of the
sensor to skew with temperature, thus limiting these potential sources of
instrument instability. Tesseract's cores achieve a magnetic noise floor of
5 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz, an orthogonality within 0.015<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and a temperature stability of 13–17 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Sensor design</title>
      <p id="d1e1140">Tesseract is designed to mitigate known sources of instability such as
an uncompensated residual field inside the sensor and skewing of the axes and the cores due to mechanical and thermal stresses while still maintaining low
noise and a small size. Here we describe the design, optimization,
manufacturing, and assembly processes for the Tesseract sensor.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Racetrack core design</title>
      <p id="d1e1150">The noise floor of a fluxgate is typically limited by the intrinsic magnetic
noise of a permalloy core that is periodically driven into magnetic
saturation to modulate the local magnetic field. Recent development in
custom low-noise core manufacturing by Miles et al. (2019) enabled us to create custom low-noise miniature racetrack sensors (Miles et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e1153">Custom permalloy created using the Miles et al. (2022) process is cold-rolled into 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m-thick foil. The permalloy foil is then cut to 5 cm length,
stacked, drilled, and secured in a tight bundle. A milling machine was used
to machine 6.45 mm-wide by 31.45 mm-long racetrack foil washers. The racetrack washers are placed in the furnace, heat-treated, and stacked into a Torlon bobbin (Fig. 2a) and interleaved with insulating layers of Kapton
of the same geometry.</p>
      <p id="d1e1164">Production cores are interleaved with a polymer between the foil layers to
prevent them from moving during the magnetizing drive pulses. A plastic lid
closes the core and serves as a base upon which to wind a quasi-toroidal
drive of AWG 32 magnet wire (Fig. 2b). Finally, a solenoidal sense winding
of AWG 34 magnet wire is wrapped around the length of the base.</p>
      <p id="d1e1167">The stacked foil washers remove the need to spot-weld, as is done in
traditional spiral-wound sensors, avoiding the heat-affected area around the
weld and its unpredictable magnetic properties. Heat-treating the foil
washers individually removes the risk of undesired welding between layers
that can cause unintended shorting. The racetrack geometry aligns ferromagnetic mass on one axis, producing lower noise. However, the
racetrack geometry cannot be double-wound like a ring core to sample two orthogonal components. The closed flux path of the racetrack should reduce
stray fields and offset error compared with traditional parallel rod sensors (e.g., Janosek, 2017; Moldovanu et al., 2000).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1173"><bold>(a)</bold> Layers of foil loops are stacked within a Torlon
bobbin with a layer of Kapton placed in between permalloy layers. <bold>(b)</bold> The bobbin serves as a frame for the drive coils which are wound on the two long
racetrack supports.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1189"><bold>(a)</bold> Tesseract's six miniature racetrack cores are wound with a
solenoidal sense winding, arranged in pairs/two per axis and <bold>(b)</bold> secured
within one common Torlon base. The Tesseract sensor's Merritt coil feedback
windings are wound in small, machined channels in this base.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Sensor base design</title>
      <p id="d1e1211">Tesseract leverages this racetrack geometry to create a compact sensor. Six
of these custom racetrack geometry cores are fixed within a three-axis
symmetric 30 % glass-filled polyamide-imide (Torlon 5030) base in a compact configuration of two cores per axis shown in Fig. 3a. We
hypothesize that pairing of identical cores with opposite polarities in each
axis may further reduce the tendency for cross-axis contamination due to
mutual cancellation of their stray fields (Ripka and Billingsley, 2000).</p>
      <p id="d1e1214"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>These cores are then secured firmly in place using polymerics and
nonmagnetic screws so that they do not shift during vibration, but without
exerting any mechanical stress on the core (Fig. 3b). Vacuum-tolerant epoxy is used to secure the drive windings to the cylindrical walls of the
bobbin, thereby locking the drive winding in place without creating a rigid
bond to the racetrack core. The foil bobbin and the sensor base are
manufactured from the same glass-filled Torlon, which will reduce the impact of mismatched coefficients of linear thermal expansions compared with sensors using the traditional Inconel bobbin. This further reduces the potential for
mechanical stress.</p>
      <p id="d1e1218">Torlon is lighter and much easier to machine than the traditional Inconel
ring-core bobbin used in Miles et al. (2013). Small channels of a predetermined width and depth are precisely and symmetrically machined into
a Torlon block. This block serves as a common base upon which to wind
Tesseract's three orthogonal feedback coils (Fig. 3b in red). This single solid three-axis symmetric base for all three sense coil axes is expected to further
reduce the tendency of the sensor's axes to skew with temperature, thus
preserving the orthogonality.</p>
      <p id="d1e1221">Additionally, a common base for the feedback windings provides a small,
linear temperature dependence that can be characterized and then compensated
in electronics. Fluxgate sensor measurements have long been known to vary
with temperature (e.g., Trigg et al., 1971). Miles et al. (2017) document the historical technique (Acuña et al., 1978) of providing real-time analog temperature compensation. Temperature compensation can be provided
electronically in real time by modifying the feedback current. A
transconductance amplifier can be modified such that the normally constant
voltage-to-current transfer function is engineered to respond to the load
resistance provided by resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) which are mounted in series with the feedback. This scaling of this transfer function allows, to first order, the effect of temperature on the load resistance offered by the sense winding to
compensate for the effect of temperature on the sensor geometry.</p>
      <p id="d1e1225">The compensation is limited to the linear scaling of this transfer function,
so it requires that the sensor be highly mechanically stable with
temperature such that its thermal sensitivity dependence is functionally
linear through the operating temperature range; 30 % glass-filled Torlon has a very linear response to temperature and a thermal expansion coefficient of 16.2 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, making it an excellent base material
for linear sensitivity temperature compensation. There are materials with a
lower coefficient of thermal expansion; Torlon was selected to match the thermal expansion coefficient of the copper windings (16.7 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and minimize stress in the sensor. Tesseract takes advantage of this
property of Torlon for effective real-time linear temperature compensation, which should contribute to good measurement stability over changes in
temperature. Torlon is also extremely resistant to shearing and skewing with
temperature. We expect that this will reduce the tendency of the sensor's
axes to skew with temperature.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Feedback winding design</title>
      <p id="d1e1278">Tesseract's three orthogonal feedback coils are wound into channels that
have been machined symmetrically into the Torlon base (Fig. 3b). A computer numerical control winding machine is used to guide 40 AWG magnet wires into the channels so that there is no asymmetry or overlap. These feedback windings create a
three-axis “magnetic null” inside the sensor where the racetrack fluxgate
cores are held in a near-zero field. This ensures that the cores do not become oversaturated and exceed their linear sensitivity region regardless of the
magnitude of the ambient magnetic field (Primdahl and Jensen, 1982).
Retaining the cores in a homogeneous region, where the magnetic field can be
effectively nulled, helps to ensure a reproducible magnetization of the ferromagnetic cores. This is thought to improve the sensor's measurement
stability and linearity.</p>
      <p id="d1e1281">A homogeneous magnetic null at the cores improves stability over temperature
by reducing the dependence of the sensitivity on the temperature dependence of the excitation current (Korepanov and Marusenkov, 2012). A study by
Petrucha et al. (2015) determined that, in a three-axis null sensor, changing the inhomogeneity of the magnetic feedback by that deviation from the average along the core by 1.3 % can alter the measured alignment of the sensor's
axes by as much as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Brauer et al. (1997) demonstrated that
inhomogeneities as low as 1 % cause 25 nT deviations from linearity when an uncompensated earth field is applied to a transverse axis.
Tesseract's feedback windings are arranged as a four-square Merritt coil on three axes. This configuration creates a relatively large homogeneous region
relative to the coil's volume compared with a traditional Helmholtz coil (Merritt et al., 1983).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>2.3.1</label><title>Feedback field simulation</title>
      <p id="d1e1309">To analyze and optimize the design of the Tesseract sensor's feedback
windings, we developed a Biot–Savart simulation of the magnetic field generated by these windings when a direct current is applied. The simulation of the magnetic field generated by Tesseract's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis feedback coils, rendered in Fig. 4a, is as a slice at the plane <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4b). The
main region of interest is the area occupied by racetrack cores (outlined in
maroon), which is at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm. For the purposes of this paper, the figure of merit for a feedback
winding configuration will be the degree to which this winding holds the
racetrack core axis in a homogeneous field, more explicitly, the maximum percentage that the magnetic field values along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm axis
deviate from the average field along this axis.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1386"><bold>(a)</bold> A four-square Merritt coil system is the basis of the design for the Tesseract sensor's feedback windings. A Biot–Savart simulation of Tesseract's feedback winding models each loop of wire as a square array assigned a position on a 3D grid. Here we show a rendering of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis feedback coil. <bold>(b)</bold> A 2D cross section at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the Biot–Savart model of the Tesseract sensor. The maroon loops outline the regions where the racetrack sensors are situated. The contours plot the
percentage of deviation of the field from its average along the axis of the
racetrack cores (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm). In this region, the maximum deviation of the magnetic field from the average field along the racetrack core is
about 0.42 %. Blue arrows map out the direction and magnitude of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
field, while the red dots represent the positions of the wires.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1451">The simulation of the Tesseract sensor's feedback design suggests that the
deviation from a uniform magnetic field along the 1D axis of the racetrack
core (at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm) does not exceed 0.45 % (Fig. 4b). We surmise
that keeping Tesseract's racetrack cores immersed in this highly
magnetically homogeneous region will contribute more stable, linear fluxgate
performance.</p>
      <p id="d1e1469">In this simulation, each loop of wire in the Merritt coil is modeled as a square array with an assigned length, current, and location on a 3D grid (Fig. 4a). A Biot–Savart integration is applied over each element in the square array to evaluate the magnetic field at every point on this grid.
This process is repeated for every loop in the coil system, and the
resulting field values are summed to create a model of the total magnetic
field generated by a Merritt coil system.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>2.3.2</label><title>Feedback winding optimization</title>
      <p id="d1e1480">Merritt et al. (1983) provide a natural starting place for constraining the possible positions of the wires. The classic four-square Merritt coil
design, rendered in Fig. 4a, groups wires into four “channels”, two outer
channels and two inner channels, and places constraints on the size and
position of each channel. The distance of the outer channel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and inner
channel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the center (labeled at the top of Fig. 4a) must be related
to the length of the coil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1281</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5055</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Additionally, the ideal Merritt coil geometry places constraints on the
number of wire turns in each channel. For example, the number of wire turns
in the inner channel must be 0.4235 times the number of turns in the outer channel (Merritt et al., 1983).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1538">The percentage that the field along the racetrack core axis (at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm) deviates from
the average plotted against the ratio of inner loops of wire to outer loops. Seventy-two feedback winding configurations were simulated using
the Biot–Savart model. The results of the simulation showed a relationship between the ratio of inner turns to outer turns and the homogeneity of the magnetic field. A quadratic fit with an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value
of 0.8 suggests that an inner- to outer-turn ratio of 0.3985 is optimal for homogeneity.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1592">However, given the physical constraints of manufacturing a three-axis
sensor, it is necessary to violate these ratios slightly. The requirement
for channel spacing must be broken such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in order to
maintain three-axis symmetry and the mechanical integrity of the Torlon.
Other considerations about the winding (i.e., that the number of layers must be even to ensure that the terminating leads start and end in the same place
so that they can be terminated in a twisted pair) place further restrictions on the model. When all these constraints are applied, we are left with the wire
gauge, the number of wire turns, and the ratio of the number of inner loops to outer loops as parameters that can vary. The Biot–Savart model (Fig. 4b) was used to simulate 72 possible feedback winding configurations, and the
results were analyzed to determine which feedback winding characteristics
were optimal for generating a homogenous field along the axis of the
racetrack cores.</p>
      <p id="d1e1612">The field homogeneity generated by a feedback winding was found to have a
dependence on that winding's ratio of inner loops to outer loops. Figure 5
plots the percentage that the field at the racetrack core deviates from
uniformity against the ratio of inner loops of wire to outer loops. A
quadratic fit suggests that an inner- to outer-loop ratio of 0.3985 is optimal for homogeneity. This differs from the classic Merritt coil ratio of
0.4236. Shifting the inner- to outer-loop ratio compensates for the earlier violation of the channel distance requirements for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> defined in Sect. 2.3.1 that were necessary to construct a physical sensor. Other parameters
(wire gauge and total number of wire loops of the feedback winding) were not
found to have a discernable correlation with the homogeneity of the feedback
magnetic field.</p>
      <p id="d1e1627">In addition to feedback field homogeneity, another important consideration
in selecting an optimal feedback configuration for a magnetospheric sensor
is the power dissipation required for these feedback windings to the null maximum earth field <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 65 000 nT. This power consumption per
axis was calculated using the equation from Magdaleno-Adame et al. (2010):
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M109" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.795</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of turns of wire, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the length of one side of the square coil (as demarcated in Fig. 4), and, for our purposes, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> volts (the maximum voltage allowed by the operational amplifier) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 65 000 nT (the maximum field experienced in orbit). This equation implies an
inverse relationship between feedback power consumption at earth field
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the total number of loops of wire <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Thus, a feedback
configuration with more loops of wire will require less power to null the earth field with an upper limit on the resistance of the coil of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> to ensure it can null the full field.</p>
      <p id="d1e1775">Of these 72 simulated feedback winding configurations, 3 were determined to be excellent candidates for good feedback homogeneity and power
efficiency. Figure 6 shows the parameters of these configurations along with
the modeled magnetic flux density distribution along the axis of the
racetrack core for each of these optimized feedback configurations.
Prototype no. 1 was the lowest power consumption configuration. Prototype no. 2 was the lowest inhomogeneity, and Prototype no. 3 was chosen for a
balance of low inhomogeneity and low power consumption.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1780">Homogeneity of the feedback magnetic field along the axis of the
racetrack core for each axis of the three optimized sensors. The racetrack core occupies the region between the vertical dashed black lines at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
15.7 mm. Configuration <bold>(b)</bold> was optimized for best homogeneity, while sensor <bold>(c)</bold> was chosen for good homogeneity with very low power consumption.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1805">The configuration in Fig. 6c with 864 turns and a wire gauge of 40 AWG was
determined to be a suitable balance of good homogeneity and feedback power
efficiency. The magnetic field along the racetrack core axis varies by less
than 0.46 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, 0.38 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, and 0.32 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis. This design requires a sensor power consumption of 89.1 mW to compensate for a worst-case earth field of 65 000 nT, which is very
reasonable for accommodation on a small satellite. This is the feedback
winding design that we plan to implement on the flight-ready Tesseract
magnetometer that will be flown on the ACES-II sounding rockets and again on
the TRACERS satellite's mission.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Sensor characterization</title>
      <p id="d1e1839">The Tesseract sensor design was prototyped and subjected to a series of
tests in order to evaluate the validity of our design models and to
quantitatively characterize the sensor's performance. First, several
prototype sensors were manufactured and tested for feedback winding
homogeneity and stability over temperature. From the results of these
initial tests, as described in this section, we selected the prototype that
exhibited the most homogeneous feedback field.</p>
      <p id="d1e1842">Then, a high-fidelity prototype was manufactured with the specifications
shown in Table 1. A series of tests was conducted on this prototype to quantify the characteristics of the Tesseract sensor: the feedback field
uniformity, the sensitivity and orthogonality over changes in temperature,
and the noise floor of the core. All the tests described in this section
were conducted at the University of Iowa Magnetometer Calibration Facility.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Feedback field homogeneity</title>
      <p id="d1e1852">In order to experimentally characterize the magnetic field generated by the
feedback windings and test the results of the Biot–Savart model, three prototype sensors were manufactured with the optimized feedback winding
configurations modeled in Fig. 6. For our purposes, we are most interested in quantifying the homogeneity of the feedback magnetic field along the axis of
the racetrack core. Each prototype sensor was placed within a single-axis solenoid within a three-layer Mumetal magnetic shield, and a constant current of 20 mA was applied to the feedback windings, creating a magnetic field of
about 190 000 nT. A direct-current hall effect milligauss meter probe was placed in the center of the racetrack core's rectangular borehole in the
prototype bobbin, and measurements of the magnetic field generated by this current were taken along the bore axis at 2.5 mm intervals. The final value
for each measurement was found as an average of that value over four
separate tests. The uncertainty was determined by the range over which each
measured magnetic field value varied over the four tests. Figure 7 plots the
measured magnetic flux distribution along the longest axis of the racetrack
core for each prototype sensor as a percentage deviation from the average
field value along the borehole axis between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 15.7 mm (the domain of the racetrack core).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1867"><bold>(a)</bold> The magnetic field generated by the Tesseract Prototype no. 3 sensors' feedback windings was measured in 2.5 mm intervals along the axis
of the racetrack borehole. The magnetic field is plotted as the percentage deviation from the average value in the racetrack core region (between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 15.7 mm). The feedback magnetic field does not deviate by more than
0.42 % along the core axis, and the feedback coils consume 29.7 mW to the null earth field. <bold>(b)</bold> The measured percentage deviation of the magnetic field for
each position along the axis of the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor feedback
winding. The magnetic field deviates by as much as 5.62 % in the domain of
the one-inch ring core (between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 12.7 mm).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Comparison with the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor feedback field</title>
      <p id="d1e1908">We performed the same test again, this time using our prototype feedback
winding for the Miles et al. (2013) one-inch ring-core sensor (Fig. 1b), which has a similar geometry to its e-POP design (Wallis et al., 2015) and historical
missions (e.g., Acuña and Ness, 1980). This ring-core sensor uses solenoidal windings which have similar dimensions for all three axes, so we expect the
feedback field to be roughly the same for each axis. Figure 9 plots the
measured magnetic flux distribution along the radial axis of
the ring core as a percentage deviation from the average field value in this region. Distance is measured from the center of
the ring core, and the ring core itself extends from 12.7 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm.</p>
      <p id="d1e1921">The maximum that the measured feedback field deviates from uniformity along
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis of the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor is 5.62 %. The Miles et al. (2013) sensor's feedback windings generate a field along the center axis of the ring core that is 10 times more inhomogeneous than that generated by the Tesseract sensor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>3.1.2</label><title>Comparison with the Biot–Savart model</title>
      <p id="d1e1940">The feedback configuration of Prototype 3 (Fig. 7c), with 864 turns of 40
AWG wire on each axis, was chosen to be the current high-fidelity sensor
(Fig. 1a) and will be flown on future missions. This feedback winding
generates a magnetic field along the axis of its cores that deviates from the average by a maximum of 0.42 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, 0.39 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, and 0.26 % on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis. To assess the effectiveness of our Biot–Savart simulation experimentally, we directly compared these data with the model output for the field values along the axis of the racetrack borehole. The
results of the model are plotted for each axis as solid lines (Fig. 8).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1966">The measured values of the magnetic field for each position along
the axis of the racetrack borehole are plotted as circles with their corresponding error bars. The output Biot–Savart simulation at the location of the racetrack core is plotted as a solid line.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1975">Slight differences between the field on the three axes are due to Tesseract's differently sized feedback loops that are necessary to nest the
physical coils (Fig. 1a). The simulation does a reasonable job of modeling
the data within the error bars. To quantify the goodness of the model's fit
to the data, the square root of the variance of the residuals (RMSE) and
the adjusted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were calculated for each axis and for each of
the three prototypes. The Biot–Savart model fits the data to well above an adjusted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.95 and an RMSE below 5.0 for
each axis of each prototype sensor. The quality of these fits implies a very
strong agreement between the data and the model, and we take this
as an experimental validation of our Biot–Savart simulation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Sensor stability over temperature</title>
      <p id="d1e2009">One of the main causes of fluxgate instability is the tendency of a sensor's intrinsic calibration parameters to change due to thermal variations in the
sensor's base and feedback windings (Acuña et al., 1978). The fluxgate
sensor's sensitivity and orthogonality have long been known to vary with
sensor temperature (Trigg et al., 1971). Thus, a characterization of the
sensor's sensitivity and orthogonality over the temperature range that would
be expected on a magnetospheric or planetary mission is critical for the validation of a space-based fluxgate sensor.</p>
      <p id="d1e2012">The dominant effect of changes in temperature on a three-axis null sensor is
the change in sensitivity due to variations in the geometry of the coils of
wire used to provide magnetic feedback (Primdahl and Jensen, 1982), which is in turn dependent on the rate of thermal expansion or contraction of the
material of the bobbin upon which the feedback coils are wound (Acuña
et al., 1978). The temperature-dependent sensitivity can be corrected to first order by fluxgate electronics using a compensated feedback current (Primdahl, 1970; Acuña et al., 1978; Miles et al., 2017). Another cause
of instability is the tendency of the sensor's three orthogonal feedback
coils to skew over changes in sensor temperature (Ripka, 1992); however, no
equivalent compensation exists for orthogonality, so while smaller temperature-dependent sensitivity is desirable, smaller orthogonality dependence is more critical. Here, we describe a test to measure the
sensitivity and orthogonality of the Tesseract sensor's feedback windings
over temperature by temporarily configuring it as an air-core search coil
magnetometer. This allows us to assess the temperature stability of the sensor base and feedback windings without any dependence on cores or electronics.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Experimental apparatus</title>
      <p id="d1e2022">Accurately measuring sensitivity and orthogonality over temperature is
notoriously challenging, notably due to the difficulty in keeping the excitation/calibration coils thermally isolated from the sensor to ensure
that measured changes result from the sensor under test rather than changes
in the experimental apparatus. This test usually requires sophisticated
equipment. Simpler, low-cost experimental setups have been created (i.e.,
Brauer et al., 1999; Miles et al., 2017) to calibrate a magnetometer using
an insulated cooler filled with dry ice placed within some form of
calibration coil.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2027"><bold>(a)</bold> The Tesseract prototype is secured in the center of a
2 m Merritt coil system. This coil system is used to generate a field against which Tesseract can be calibrated. <bold>(b)</bold> The sensor is secured inside a polystyrene box, and the box is filled with dry ice and a Styrofoam
lid is placed on top.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f09.jpg"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2041">To characterize the thermal stability of the Tesseract sensor's base and
feedback windings without any dependence on cores and electronics, we temporarily configured it as an air-core search coil magnetometer. The
sensor is placed in a thermally insulated box made from 10 cm-thick polystyrene to create a controlled temperature environment for the sensor.
The polystyrene box is then placed within the 2 m Merritt coil system shown in Fig. 9a. The Tesseract sensor's axes are manually aligned with
the coil system's axes (Fig. 9b) and then slowly rotated until the
measured 23 Hz signal is maximized on each axis. The sensor base is then firmly fastened to a mount so that it does not rotate over the course of
the test. The coil system is used to generate a 60 000 nT, alternating-current magnetic field at 23 Hz on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis for 2 min. The same field is then applied to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes, and the coil system is set to cycle through <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, so that a complete measurement of sensitivity and orthogonality is taken every 6 min. A reference vector magnetometer is placed outside of the
box, aligned with the coil system, and wrapped in insulating material to
monitor the applied alternating-current field and to ensure that the magnitude does not vary.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2090">The temperature of the Tesseract sensor (blue) is measured using
a platinum RTD as the dry ice sublimates. The temperature of the reference
magnetometer (red) was also monitored and found to vary by less than 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C over the course of the test.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2108">Five kilograms of dry ice is placed inside the box to chill the sensor, and measurements are taken after the dry ice has sublimated and the sensor is slowly warming. A platinum RTD temperature sensor is attached to the sensor
and records the change in temperature as the sensor returns to room temperature (Fig. 10). As the Tesseract sensor temperature slowly
increases, the voltage induced in the Tesseract prototype sensor's feedback windings, the reference magnetometer, and the temperature sensors is digitized and recorded using a common 18-bit National Instruments Data Acquisition Device.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Feedback sensitivity and orthogonality over temperature</title>
      <p id="d1e2119">To evaluate the feedback sensitivity and orthogonality, a finite Fourier
transform is performed for each 2 min segment of data where the 23 Hz
field is applied to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The measured amplitudes of these signals at 23 Hz are recorded for all three axes. This yields nine values that define the calibration of the sensor.</p>
      <p id="d1e2143"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The sensitivity or gain on each axis is simply the output of the feedback
winding when the 60 000 nT field is applied in that direction. Figure 12a
plots the measured change in sensitivity measured in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> feedback windings in parts per million over changes in temperature. The Tesseract
sensor's three orthogonality angles,  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as defined in Olsen et al. (2003), can be found using simple trigonometry:

                  <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M148" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the field measured on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis when the coil system applies a field in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the field measured in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when a field is applied in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the field measured in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when a field is applied in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total
magnitude of the applied field, which is defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the field measured on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis when the coil system applies a field on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the field measured on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis when the coil system applies a field to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the measured field on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis when the coil system applies a field to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis. Figure 12b plots the change in these angles, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, over temperature.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2541">The orthogonality angles are defined according to the convention from Olsen et al. (2003). Equations (2), (3), and (4) are different for  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> because the Olsen et al. (2003) convention defines the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis as projection-invariant, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis has a single degree of freedom on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> plane, and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis has 2 degrees of freedom.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2597"><bold>(a)</bold> The measured sensitivity of the Tesseract sensor's three feedback windings plotted against temperature. Each circle is a 2 min
measurement of the amplitude of the 60 000 nT, 23 Hz signal. The dotted lines
are a robust linear fit to the data. The fits estimate the Tesseract sensitivity over temperature. <bold>(b)</bold> The Tesseract sensor's three orthogonality angles,  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, plotted as a function of sensor temperature. None of the angles are found to unambiguously skew by more than
0.015<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(c)</bold> The measured sensitivity of the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core
sensor's three feedback windings plotted against temperature. <bold>(d)</bold> The Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensors' orthogonality angles are found to skew over temperature by as much as 0.09<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/11/307/2022/gi-11-307-2022-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2669">Notwithstanding this modest experimental setup, we are able to measure the
sensor's change in sensitivity and orthogonality over temperature. A robust
linear fit to the data gives an estimate of the linear dependence of
sensitivity on temperature. On all three axes, the sensitivities to temperature are very linear, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.995. We expect that
this will make temperature compensation very effective, since the
compensation method used by Acuña et al. (1978) is strictly linear. The
sensitivity to temperature on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes is 16.6 and 17.1 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, very comparable to the thermal coefficient of expansion of copper (16.7 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and of the
Torlon base material (16.2 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), as predicted by Acuña et al. (1978). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, which is aligned with the direction that Torlon extrusion was injected into the mold during manufacturing, differs slightly
(13.3 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Over the course of the test, the signal measured
by the reference magnetometer does not vary by more than 20 ppm on each axis, which confirms that these changes in sensitivity are due to changes in the
sensor's feedback windings and not the applied field.</p>
      <p id="d1e2790">We do not measure any variation in axis alignment to within deviations of
0.015<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over changes in temperature from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The sensor's feedback windings are a less-than-ideal search
coil, so the accuracy of the measurements is limited by a poor signal. The background magnetic noise of the laboratory also limits the accuracy of this
test. This test will be repeated once the sensor is integrated into a
functioning fluxgate instrument in a magnetically quiet facility in order to verify its flight calibrations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>3.2.3</label><title>Comparison with the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor design</title>
      <p id="d1e2830">The sensitivity and orthogonality of the ring-core's feedback windings over
temperature were measured with the same method described above. The Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor design (Fig. 1b) was also temporarily configured
as an air-core search coil magnetometer so that attributes of the sensor
base and feedback windings could be directly measured. The measured
sensitivity and orthogonality over temperature are plotted in Fig. 12b and
d.</p>
      <p id="d1e2833">While the Tesseract and ring-core sensors have comparable thermal
sensitivities, Tesseract's sensitivity over temperature is more consistent on each axis, presumably due to the greater symmetry of the
sensor's feedback windings. The ring-core sensors' orthogonality angles skew
by as much as 0.09<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 12d). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> angle (blue) changes the most, presumably because the Miles et al. (2013) ring-core sensor base is most
asymmetric between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes (Fig. 1b).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Sensor noise</title>
      <p id="d1e2880">The noise floor of a fluxgate is typically limited by the intrinsic magnetic
noise of a ferromagnetic core that is periodically driven into magnetic
saturation to modulate the local magnetic field. The noise floor on
Tesseract's custom miniature racetrack cores was characterized in Miles et al. (2022). A single-axis electronics board was used to drive and sample each
fluxgate core. The power spectral density noise floor of the instrument was
estimated by using 20 min of data, while the racetrack sensors were inside a single-axis four-layer Mumetal magnetic shield. The noise floors for
the racetrack core sensors that will be used in Tesseract were determined to
be 5 pT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mo>√</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Hz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 Hz (Miles et al., 2022).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2913">The novel fluxgate sensor called Tesseract has been designed and prototyped.
It is a low-mass, low-noise sensor that mitigates several known causes of instability in our one-inch ring-core design. We modeled the sensor's feedback winding using a Biot–Savart simulation and used it to optimize the Tesseract sensor's feedback topology for homogeneity and power consumption. The
simulation results were in agreement with laboratory measurements of the
prototype sensors' feedback magnetic field. Tesseract retains its ferromagnetic cores in a feedback magnetic field that is homogeneous to within
deviations of 0.42 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e2916">We used a low-cost method to analyze the sensitivity and orthogonality of
the sensor over temperature independent of cores or electronics. Using this
method, we show that Tesseract's three orthogonal axes skew by no more than 0.015<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over changes in temperature from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The Tesseract sensor outperforms our one-inch ring-core sensor design in both these metrics. Tesseract's orthogonal axes are more stable by at least a factor of 4, and its magnetic feedback is more
homogenous by a factor of 13. We surmise that the Tesseract sensor's higher
degree of feedback homogeneity and axis stability over temperature will
contribute to improved fluxgate stability.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Future work</title>
      <p id="d1e2954">The accuracy of these measurements is limited by the magnetic noise of the
laboratory setup, and in an uncontrolled warming there is always the possibility of thermal gradients or transients. A more sophisticated experimental setup will be required to characterize the stability of Tesseract's calibration
parameters to an accuracy acceptable for most space science applications
(greater than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nT). We are currently developing a new calibration
facility at the University of Iowa that will be purpose-built for controlled temperature characterization of fluxgate sensor calibration parameters, which
will incorporate better shielding and limit the possibility of thermal gradients or shocks. In future studies, we hope to use the specialized,
environmentally controlled Helmholtz coil facility at Goddard Space Flight
Center that would be capable of resolving Tesseract's long-term stability to
a precision of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pT (Vernier et al., 2004).</p>
      <p id="d1e2977">Fluxgate electronics are currently being developed for the Tesseract sensor in preparation for upcoming flights. Once the sensor has been integrated
with cores and electronics, Tesseract will be characterized again as a complete flight-ready fluxgate instrument. Tesseract will be flight-demonstrated on the ACES-II sounding rockets, currently scheduled to launch
in December 2022, and again aboard the TRACERS satellite mission as part of the MAGIC technology demonstration which is scheduled to launch in 2023.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2986">Data and source code used in the creation of this paper can be
accessed by contacting the authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2992">KG led the design, assembly, and execution of the experiments,
analyzed the data, created the feedback field simulation, and wrote the manuscript with contributions from all the authors. DMM provided
supervision and funding of the project as the lead investigator and assisted
in the interpretation of the data. CH led the development and
manufacture of the Tesseract sensor prototypes. BBN conceptualized the Tesseract sensor design. RD assisted with the design of the
sensor prototypes and testing apparatus.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2998">B. Barry Narod operated Narod Geophysics Ltd., which manufactured fluxgate
magnetometers until the company ceased production operation in 2008.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e3004">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3010">The authors are greatly indebted to Suman Sherwani and Amanda Lasko. This
work would not have been possible if it were not for their oversight and
management of the prototype manufacturing and testing processes. Special
thanks to Samuel Hisel, Antonio Washington, and Alex Hoffman for lending their expertise to laboratory electronics and software and for their
flexibility in managing hardware that made this experimental work feasible.
Special thanks to Michael D. Webb for lending his expertise to laboratory equipment. The authors would also like to thank Steve Klinkhammer and Ryan Helland for their manufacturing efforts and Katherine Deasy for her work in
configuration management.</p><p id="d1e3012">Early development activities and much of the research infrastructure used in
this work were supported by faculty start-up funding for David Miles from the University of Iowa. This material is based upon work supported by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration under grant no. 80NSSC19K0491
issued through the Science Mission Directorate and contract no. 80GSFC18C0008 administered by Goddard Space Flight Center.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3017">This research has been supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (grant no. 80NSSC19K0491).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3023">This paper was edited by Valery Korepanov and reviewed by Mark Moldwin, Hans-Ulrich Auster, and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Acuña, M. H. and Ness, N. F.: The Magnetic Field of Saturn: Pioneer 11
Observations, Science, 207, 444–446, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.207.4429.444" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.207.4429.444</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Acuña, M. H., Scearce, C. S., Seek, J., and Scheifele, J.: The MAGSAT vector magnetometer: A precision fluxgate magnetometer for the measurement of the geomagnetic field, Technical report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Auster, H. U., Glassmeier, K. H., Magnes, W., Aydogar, O., Baumjohann, W.,
Constantinescu, D., Fischer, D., Fornacon, K. H., Georgescu, E., Harvey, P.,
Hillenmaier, O., Kroth, R., Ludlam, M., Narita, Y., Nakamura, R., Okrafka,
K., Plaschke, F., Richter, I., Schwarzl, H., Stoll, B., Valavanoglou, A.,
and Wiedemann, M.: The THEMIS Fluxgate Magnetometer, Space Sci. Rev., 141,
235–264, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9365-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11214-008-9365-9</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Balogh, A., Carr, C. M., Acuña, M. H., Dunlop, M. W., Beek, T. J., Brown, P., Fornacon, K.-H., Georgescu, E., Glassmeier, K.-H., Harris, J., Musmann, G., Oddy, T., and Schwingenschuh, K.: The Cluster Magnetic Field Investigation: overview of in-flight performance and initial results, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1207–1217, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1207-2001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/angeo-19-1207-2001</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bandyopadhyay, S., Subramanian, G. P., Foust, R., Morgan, D., Chung, S.-J.,
and Hadaegh, F.: A Review of Impending Small Satellite Formation Flying
Missions, in: 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 53rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1623" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2514/6.2015-1623</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M. G., Nielsen, O. V., Primdahl, F., and Petersen, J.
R.: Transverse field effect in fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
59, 70–74, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(97)01416-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0924-4247(97)01416-7</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M. G., Risbo, T., and Primdahl, F.: Magnetic
calibration of vector magnetometers, in: Workshop on Calibration of
Space-Borne Magnetometers, Institute of Geophysics and Meteorology,
Technical University of Braunschweig, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Chulliat, A., Savary, J., Telali, A., and Lalanne, X.: Acquisition of 1-Second Data in
IPGP Magnetic Observatories, Proceedings of the XIIIth IAGA Workshop on
Geomagnetic Observatory Instruments, Data Acquisition, and
Processing, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1226,
54–59, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forslund, Å., Belyayev, S., Ivchenko, N., Olsson, G., Edberg, T., and
Marusenkov, A.: Miniaturized digital fluxgate magnetometer for small
spacecraft applications, Meas. Sci. Technol., 19, 015202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/19/1/015202" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0957-0233/19/1/015202</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ganushkina, N., Jaynes, A., and Liemohn, M.: Space Weather Effects Produced
by the Ring Current Particles, Space Sci. Rev., 212, 1315–1344, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0412-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11214-017-0412-2</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garrick-Bethell, I., Paige, D. A., Burton, M., Boland, J., Abrahams, J. N.
H., Bogert, C. van der, Choi, Y.-J., Deca, J., Hanna, K. D., Farrell, W. M.,
Hemingway, D., Hiesinger, H., Jin, H., Johnson, B. C., Kaluna, H., Kelley,
M. R., Larson, D. E., Lawrence, D. J., Li, S., Ma, Y., Maxwell, R. E.,
Miller, R. S., Pieters, C. M., Poppe, A. R., Ravat, D., Russell, C. T.,
Siegler, M. A., Vernazza, P., and Weiss, B. P.: NanoSWARM: NanoSatellites
for Space Weathering, Surface Water, Solar Wind, and Remanent Magnetism, BAAS, 53, 354,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3847/25c2cfeb.314447c9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3847/25c2cfeb.314447c9</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Janosek, M.: Parallel fluxgate magnetometers, in: High Sensitivity Magnetometers, edited by: Grosz, A., Haji-Sheikh, M.,  and  Mukhopadhyay, S., Springer, Cham, Vol. 19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34070-8_2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-319-34070-8_2</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Kepko, L., Clagett, C., Santos, L., Azimi, B., Berry, D., Bonalsky, T.,
Chai, D., Cudmore, A., Evans, A., Hesh, S., Jones, S., Marshall, J.,
Paschalidis, N., Rodriquez, J., Rodriquez, M., Sheikh, S., Starin, S., and
Zesta, E.: Dellingr: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's First 6U Spacecraft,
12, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Korepanov, V. and Marusenkov, A.: Flux-Gate Magnetometers Design
Peculiarities, Surv. Geophys., 33, 1059–1079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-012-9197-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10712-012-9197-8</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Magdaleno-Adame, S., Olivares-Galvan, J. C., Campero-Littlewood, E.,
Escarela-Perez, R., and Blanco-Brisset, E.: COSMOL Conference, Boston, USA,
5 July, Coil Systems to Generate Uniform Magnetic Field Volumes, 7,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Maruca, B. A., Agudelo Rueda, J. A., Bandyopadhyay, R., Bianco, F. B.,
Chasapis, A., Chhiber, R., DeWeese, H., Matthaeus, W. H., Miles, D. M.,
Qudsi, R. A., Richardson, M. J., Servidio, S., Shay, M. A., Sundkvist, D.,
Verscharen, D., Vines, S. K., Westlake, J. H., and Wicks, R. T.: MagneToRE:
Mapping the 3-D Magnetic Structure of the Solar Wind Using a Large
Constellation of Nanosatellites, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 8, 665885,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.665885" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fspas.2021.665885</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Merayo, J. M. G., Jørgensen, J. L., Friis-Christensen, E., Brauer, P., Primdahl, F.,
Jørgensen, P. S., Allin, T. H., and Denver, T.: The Swarm magnetometry package, InSmall
satellites for Earth observation, 143–151, Springer, Dordrecht, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6943-7_13" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-1-4020-6943-7_13</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Merritt, R., Purcell, C., and Stroink, G.: Uniform magnetic field produced
by three, four, and five square coils, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 54,
879–882, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137480" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.1137480</ext-link>, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miles, D. M., Bennest, J. R., Mann, I. R., and Millling, D. K.: A radiation hardened digital fluxgate magnetometer for space applications, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 2, 213–224, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2-213-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gi-2-213-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miles, D. M., Mann, I. R., Ciurzynski, M., Barona, D., Narod, B. B.,
Bennest, J. R., Pakhotin, I. P., Kale, A., Bruner, B., Nokes, C. D. A.,
Cupido, C., Haluza-DeLay, T., Elliott, D. G., and Milling, D. K.: A
miniature, low-power scientific fluxgate magnetometer: A stepping-stone to
cube-satellite constellation missions: A Miniature Fluxgate Magnetometer, J.
Geophys. Res.-Space, 121, 11839–11860, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023147" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JA023147</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miles, D. M., Mann, I. R., Kale, A., Milling, D. K., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Barona, D., and Unsworth, M. J.: The effect of winding and core support material on the thermal gain dependence of a fluxgate magnetometer sensor, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 6, 377–396, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-377-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gi-6-377-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miles, D. M., Ciurzynski, M., Barona, D., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Kale, A., Lessard, M., Milling, D. K., Larson, J., and Mann, I. R.: Low-noise permalloy ring cores for fluxgate magnetometers, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 8, 227–240, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-8-227-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gi-8-227-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miles, D. M., Dvorsky, R., Greene, K., Hansen, C. T., Narod, B. B., and Webb, M. D.: Contributors to fluxgate magnetic noise in permalloy foils including a potential new copper alloy regime, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 11, 111–126, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-111-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gi-11-111-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moldovanu, A., Chiriac, H., Moldovanu, C., Macoviciuc, M., and Ioan, C.:
Performances of the fluxgate sensor with tensile stress annealed ribbons,
Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys., 81, 189–192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00085-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00085-0</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nakariakov, V. M., Pilipenko, V., Heilig, B., Jelínek, P.,
Karlický, M., Klimushkin, D. Y., Kolotkov, D. Y., Lee, D.-H.,
Nisticò, G., Van Doorsselaere, T., Verth, G., and Zimovets, I. V.:
Magnetohydrodynamic Oscillations in the Solar Corona and Earth's
Magnetosphere: Towards Consolidated Understanding, Space Sci. Rev., 200,
75–203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0233-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11214-015-0233-0</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Narod, B. B. and Bennest, J. R.: Ring-core fluxgate magnetometers for use as
observatory variometers, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 59,
23–28, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(90)90205-C" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0031-9201(90)90205-C</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Olsen, N., Tøffner-Clausen, L., Sabaka, T. J., Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M.
G., Jørgensen, J. L., Léger, J. M., Nielsen, O. V., Primdahl, F., and
Risbo, T.: Calibration of the Ørsted vector magnetometer, Earth Planets
Space, 55, 11–18, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352458" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/BF03352458</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petrucha, V., Janosek, M., and Azpurua, M. A.: Vector Feedback Homogeneity
and Inner Layout Influence on Fluxgate Sensor Parameters, IEEE T.
Instrum. Meas., 64, 1285–1291, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2014.2362831" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TIM.2014.2362831</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Pfaff Jr., R. F.: An Overview of the Scientific and Space Weather
Motivation for the Notional Geospace Dynamics Constellation Mission, AGU
Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, 13 December, SA23C-01, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Primdahl, F.: Temperature compensation of fluxgate magnetometers, IEEE
T. Magn., 6, 819–822, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1970.1066971" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TMAG.1970.1066971</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Primdahl, F.: The fluxgate magnetometer, J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum., 12,
241–253, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/12/4/001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0022-3735/12/4/001</ext-link>, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Primdahl, F. and Jensen, P. A.: Compact spherical coil for fluxgate
magnetometer vector feedback, J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum., 15, 221–226,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/15/2/015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0022-3735/15/2/015</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ripka, P.: Review of fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
33, 129–141, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-4247(92)80159-Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0924-4247(92)80159-Z</ext-link>,
1992.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ripka, P.: Advances in fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
106, 8–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00094-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00094-3</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ripka, P. and Billingsley, S. W.: Crossfield effect at fluxgate, Sensor.
Actuat. A-Phys., 81, 176–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00082-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00082-5</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ripka, P., Pribil, M., and Butta, M.: Fluxgate Offset Study, IEEE T.
Magn., 50, 1–4, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2014.2329777" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TMAG.2014.2329777</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Slavin, J. A., Le, G., Strangeway, R. J., Wang, Y., Boardsen, S. A.,
Moldwin, M. B., and Spence, H. E.: Space Technology 5 multi-point
measurements of near-Earth magnetic fields: Initial results, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 35, L02107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031728" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL031728</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torbert, R. B., Russell, C. T., Magnes, W., Ergun, R. E., Lindqvist, P.-A.,
LeContel, O., Vaith, H., Macri, J., Myers, S., Rau, D., Needell, J., King,
B., Granoff, M., Chutter, M., Dors, I., Olsson, G., Khotyaintsev, Y. V.,
Eriksson, A., Kletzing, C. A., Bounds, S., Anderson, B., Baumjohann, W.,
Steller, M., Bromund, K., Le, G., Nakamura, R., Strangeway, R. J.,
Leinweber, H. K., Tucker, S., Westfall, J., Fischer, D., Plaschke, F.,
Porter, J., and Lappalainen, K.: The FIELDS Instrument Suite on MMS:
Scientific Objectives, Measurements, and Data Products, Space Sci. Rev., 199,
105–135, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0109-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11214-014-0109-8</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Trigg, D. F., Serson, P. H., and Camfield, P. A.: A solid-state electrical recording magnetometer, vol. 41, Publ. Earth Phys. Branch, Dept. Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, 66–80, 1971.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Vernier, R., Bonalsky, T., and Slavin, J.: Goddard space flight center spacecraft magnetic test facility restoration project, 23rd Space Simulation Conference Proceedings, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wallis, D. D., Miles, D. M., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Murphy, K. R.,
Mann, I. R., and Yau, A. W.: The CASSIOPE/e-POP Magnetic Field Instrument
(MGF), Space Sci. Rev., 189, 27–39, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0105-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11214-014-0105-z</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Tesseract – a high-stability, low-noise fluxgate sensor  designed for constellation applications</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Acuña, M. H. and Ness, N. F.: The Magnetic Field of Saturn: Pioneer 11
Observations, Science, 207, 444–446, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.207.4429.444" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.207.4429.444</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Acuña, M. H., Scearce, C. S., Seek, J., and Scheifele, J.: The MAGSAT vector magnetometer: A precision fluxgate magnetometer for the measurement of the geomagnetic field, Technical report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Auster, H. U., Glassmeier, K. H., Magnes, W., Aydogar, O., Baumjohann, W.,
Constantinescu, D., Fischer, D., Fornacon, K. H., Georgescu, E., Harvey, P.,
Hillenmaier, O., Kroth, R., Ludlam, M., Narita, Y., Nakamura, R., Okrafka,
K., Plaschke, F., Richter, I., Schwarzl, H., Stoll, B., Valavanoglou, A.,
and Wiedemann, M.: The THEMIS Fluxgate Magnetometer, Space Sci. Rev., 141,
235–264, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9365-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9365-9</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Balogh, A., Carr, C. M., Acuña, M. H., Dunlop, M. W., Beek, T. J., Brown, P., Fornacon, K.-H., Georgescu, E., Glassmeier, K.-H., Harris, J., Musmann, G., Oddy, T., and Schwingenschuh, K.: The Cluster Magnetic Field Investigation: overview of in-flight performance and initial results, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1207–1217, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1207-2001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1207-2001</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bandyopadhyay, S., Subramanian, G. P., Foust, R., Morgan, D., Chung, S.-J.,
and Hadaegh, F.: A Review of Impending Small Satellite Formation Flying
Missions, in: 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 53rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1623" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1623</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M. G., Nielsen, O. V., Primdahl, F., and Petersen, J.
R.: Transverse field effect in fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
59, 70–74, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(97)01416-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(97)01416-7</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M. G., Risbo, T., and Primdahl, F.: Magnetic
calibration of vector magnetometers, in: Workshop on Calibration of
Space-Borne Magnetometers, Institute of Geophysics and Meteorology,
Technical University of Braunschweig, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chulliat, A., Savary, J., Telali, A., and Lalanne, X.: Acquisition of 1-Second Data in
IPGP Magnetic Observatories, Proceedings of the XIIIth IAGA Workshop on
Geomagnetic Observatory Instruments, Data Acquisition, and
Processing, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1226,
54–59, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Forslund, Å., Belyayev, S., Ivchenko, N., Olsson, G., Edberg, T., and
Marusenkov, A.: Miniaturized digital fluxgate magnetometer for small
spacecraft applications, Meas. Sci. Technol., 19, 015202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/19/1/015202" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/19/1/015202</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ganushkina, N., Jaynes, A., and Liemohn, M.: Space Weather Effects Produced
by the Ring Current Particles, Space Sci. Rev., 212, 1315–1344, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0412-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0412-2</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Garrick-Bethell, I., Paige, D. A., Burton, M., Boland, J., Abrahams, J. N.
H., Bogert, C. van der, Choi, Y.-J., Deca, J., Hanna, K. D., Farrell, W. M.,
Hemingway, D., Hiesinger, H., Jin, H., Johnson, B. C., Kaluna, H., Kelley,
M. R., Larson, D. E., Lawrence, D. J., Li, S., Ma, Y., Maxwell, R. E.,
Miller, R. S., Pieters, C. M., Poppe, A. R., Ravat, D., Russell, C. T.,
Siegler, M. A., Vernazza, P., and Weiss, B. P.: NanoSWARM: NanoSatellites
for Space Weathering, Surface Water, Solar Wind, and Remanent Magnetism, BAAS, 53, 354,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3847/25c2cfeb.314447c9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3847/25c2cfeb.314447c9</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Janosek, M.: Parallel fluxgate magnetometers, in: High Sensitivity Magnetometers, edited by: Grosz, A., Haji-Sheikh, M.,  and  Mukhopadhyay, S., Springer, Cham, Vol. 19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34070-8_2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34070-8_2</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Kepko, L., Clagett, C., Santos, L., Azimi, B., Berry, D., Bonalsky, T.,
Chai, D., Cudmore, A., Evans, A., Hesh, S., Jones, S., Marshall, J.,
Paschalidis, N., Rodriquez, J., Rodriquez, M., Sheikh, S., Starin, S., and
Zesta, E.: Dellingr: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's First 6U Spacecraft,
12, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Korepanov, V. and Marusenkov, A.: Flux-Gate Magnetometers Design
Peculiarities, Surv. Geophys., 33, 1059–1079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-012-9197-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-012-9197-8</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Magdaleno-Adame, S., Olivares-Galvan, J. C., Campero-Littlewood, E.,
Escarela-Perez, R., and Blanco-Brisset, E.: COSMOL Conference, Boston, USA,
5 July, Coil Systems to Generate Uniform Magnetic Field Volumes, 7,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Maruca, B. A., Agudelo Rueda, J. A., Bandyopadhyay, R., Bianco, F. B.,
Chasapis, A., Chhiber, R., DeWeese, H., Matthaeus, W. H., Miles, D. M.,
Qudsi, R. A., Richardson, M. J., Servidio, S., Shay, M. A., Sundkvist, D.,
Verscharen, D., Vines, S. K., Westlake, J. H., and Wicks, R. T.: MagneToRE:
Mapping the 3-D Magnetic Structure of the Solar Wind Using a Large
Constellation of Nanosatellites, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 8, 665885,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.665885" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.665885</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Merayo, J. M. G., Jørgensen, J. L., Friis-Christensen, E., Brauer, P., Primdahl, F.,
Jørgensen, P. S., Allin, T. H., and Denver, T.: The Swarm magnetometry package, InSmall
satellites for Earth observation, 143–151, Springer, Dordrecht, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6943-7_13" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6943-7_13</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Merritt, R., Purcell, C., and Stroink, G.: Uniform magnetic field produced
by three, four, and five square coils, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 54,
879–882, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137480" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137480</a>, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Miles, D. M., Bennest, J. R., Mann, I. R., and Millling, D. K.: A radiation hardened digital fluxgate magnetometer for space applications, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 2, 213–224, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2-213-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2-213-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Miles, D. M., Mann, I. R., Ciurzynski, M., Barona, D., Narod, B. B.,
Bennest, J. R., Pakhotin, I. P., Kale, A., Bruner, B., Nokes, C. D. A.,
Cupido, C., Haluza-DeLay, T., Elliott, D. G., and Milling, D. K.: A
miniature, low-power scientific fluxgate magnetometer: A stepping-stone to
cube-satellite constellation missions: A Miniature Fluxgate Magnetometer, J.
Geophys. Res.-Space, 121, 11839–11860, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023147" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023147</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Miles, D. M., Mann, I. R., Kale, A., Milling, D. K., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Barona, D., and Unsworth, M. J.: The effect of winding and core support material on the thermal gain dependence of a fluxgate magnetometer sensor, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 6, 377–396, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-377-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-377-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Miles, D. M., Ciurzynski, M., Barona, D., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Kale, A., Lessard, M., Milling, D. K., Larson, J., and Mann, I. R.: Low-noise permalloy ring cores for fluxgate magnetometers, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 8, 227–240, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-8-227-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-8-227-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Miles, D. M., Dvorsky, R., Greene, K., Hansen, C. T., Narod, B. B., and Webb, M. D.: Contributors to fluxgate magnetic noise in permalloy foils including a potential new copper alloy regime, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 11, 111–126, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-111-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-111-2022</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Moldovanu, A., Chiriac, H., Moldovanu, C., Macoviciuc, M., and Ioan, C.:
Performances of the fluxgate sensor with tensile stress annealed ribbons,
Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys., 81, 189–192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00085-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00085-0</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Nakariakov, V. M., Pilipenko, V., Heilig, B., Jelínek, P.,
Karlický, M., Klimushkin, D. Y., Kolotkov, D. Y., Lee, D.-H.,
Nisticò, G., Van Doorsselaere, T., Verth, G., and Zimovets, I. V.:
Magnetohydrodynamic Oscillations in the Solar Corona and Earth's
Magnetosphere: Towards Consolidated Understanding, Space Sci. Rev., 200,
75–203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0233-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0233-0</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Narod, B. B. and Bennest, J. R.: Ring-core fluxgate magnetometers for use as
observatory variometers, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 59,
23–28, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(90)90205-C" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(90)90205-C</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Olsen, N., Tøffner-Clausen, L., Sabaka, T. J., Brauer, P., Merayo, J. M.
G., Jørgensen, J. L., Léger, J. M., Nielsen, O. V., Primdahl, F., and
Risbo, T.: Calibration of the Ørsted vector magnetometer, Earth Planets
Space, 55, 11–18, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352458" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352458</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Petrucha, V., Janosek, M., and Azpurua, M. A.: Vector Feedback Homogeneity
and Inner Layout Influence on Fluxgate Sensor Parameters, IEEE T.
Instrum. Meas., 64, 1285–1291, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2014.2362831" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2014.2362831</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Pfaff Jr., R. F.: An Overview of the Scientific and Space Weather
Motivation for the Notional Geospace Dynamics Constellation Mission, AGU
Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, 13 December, SA23C-01, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Primdahl, F.: Temperature compensation of fluxgate magnetometers, IEEE
T. Magn., 6, 819–822, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1970.1066971" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1970.1066971</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Primdahl, F.: The fluxgate magnetometer, J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum., 12,
241–253, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/12/4/001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/12/4/001</a>, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Primdahl, F. and Jensen, P. A.: Compact spherical coil for fluxgate
magnetometer vector feedback, J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum., 15, 221–226,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/15/2/015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/15/2/015</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Ripka, P.: Review of fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
33, 129–141, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-4247(92)80159-Z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-4247(92)80159-Z</a>,
1992.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Ripka, P.: Advances in fluxgate sensors, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys.,
106, 8–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00094-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00094-3</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Ripka, P. and Billingsley, S. W.: Crossfield effect at fluxgate, Sensor.
Actuat. A-Phys., 81, 176–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00082-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00082-5</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Ripka, P., Pribil, M., and Butta, M.: Fluxgate Offset Study, IEEE T.
Magn., 50, 1–4, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2014.2329777" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2014.2329777</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Slavin, J. A., Le, G., Strangeway, R. J., Wang, Y., Boardsen, S. A.,
Moldwin, M. B., and Spence, H. E.: Space Technology 5 multi-point
measurements of near-Earth magnetic fields: Initial results, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 35, L02107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031728" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031728</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Torbert, R. B., Russell, C. T., Magnes, W., Ergun, R. E., Lindqvist, P.-A.,
LeContel, O., Vaith, H., Macri, J., Myers, S., Rau, D., Needell, J., King,
B., Granoff, M., Chutter, M., Dors, I., Olsson, G., Khotyaintsev, Y. V.,
Eriksson, A., Kletzing, C. A., Bounds, S., Anderson, B., Baumjohann, W.,
Steller, M., Bromund, K., Le, G., Nakamura, R., Strangeway, R. J.,
Leinweber, H. K., Tucker, S., Westfall, J., Fischer, D., Plaschke, F.,
Porter, J., and Lappalainen, K.: The FIELDS Instrument Suite on MMS:
Scientific Objectives, Measurements, and Data Products, Space Sci. Rev., 199,
105–135, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0109-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0109-8</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Trigg, D. F., Serson, P. H., and Camfield, P. A.: A solid-state electrical recording magnetometer, vol. 41, Publ. Earth Phys. Branch, Dept. Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, 66–80, 1971.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Vernier, R., Bonalsky, T., and Slavin, J.: Goddard space flight center spacecraft magnetic test facility restoration project, 23rd Space Simulation Conference Proceedings, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Wallis, D. D., Miles, D. M., Narod, B. B., Bennest, J. R., Murphy, K. R.,
Mann, I. R., and Yau, A. W.: The CASSIOPE/e-POP Magnetic Field Instrument
(MGF), Space Sci. Rev., 189, 27–39, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0105-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0105-z</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
