An Assessment of NASCAP and Charge+ Validation Work

June 4, 2025

1 Introduction
This report consolidates published evidence for the validity of the NASCAP – 2K, NASCAP/GEO, and
Charge+ spacecraft–plasma interaction codes. It reproduces key quotations, summarizes benchmark test
cases, and tabulates quantitative comparisons drawn from the literature.

2 Validation of NASCAP–2K
The validity of NASCAP – 2K has been established through theoretical benchmarks, code-to-code com-
parisons, and flight experiment reproductions. Davis et al. write:

“The code has been benchmarked against analytic and semi-analytic solutions. . . agreement with
theoretical predictions provides confidence in the code’s algorithms.”[1]

This statement was concluded from the following evidence presented by the authors:

1. Analytical benchmarks: Langmuir–Blodgett and Parker–Murphy current-collection solutions for

a conducting sphere.

2. Code-to-code comparisons: Agreement with NASCAP/GEO and the SEE Handbook for a
notional GEO satellite (Table 1).

3. Flight experiment (SPEAR–I): IV curves reproduced within 0.68 % of flight data (Table 8). Davis
et al. remark, “The agreement between NASCAP – 2K and the flight measurements of SPEAR–I is
remarkably good.”[1]

4. POLAR comparison for DMSP: Charging trends match those from the POLAR code, although
wake/ram polarity is reversed.

3 Validation of NASCAP/GEO
The original NASCAP/GEO was validated using SCATHA and HELIOS 1 data [2]. According to [6], the
SCATHA spacecraft was inserted into a 5.3RE × 7.8RE orbit and therefore was approximately in GEO.
Helios 1, was a solar probe launched into interplanetary space at a perihelion of 0.309 AU, [7].

• Plasma environment definition: For the SCATHA cases, a double-Maxwellian fit to the SC9
detector data, together with ion parameters from SC8, provided the electron and ion populations
used by NASCAP.

• SCATHA Day 146 (sunlit):

“NASCAP . . . clearly shows that the model is capable of predicting a negative ground
potential for the satellite in sunlight.”[2]

1
 • SCATHA Day 87 (eclipse, geomagnetic substorm): Simulation and flight data exhibit “similar
bursts of negative charging and discharging in eclipse.”[2]
• SCATHA Day 114 (quiet eclipse): Severe charging events—kilovolt-level surface potentials
changing on the second time scale—were “successfully” reproduced by the code.
• SCATHA Days 98 and 272 (moderate charging): After refining the geometry from a one-grid
to a three-grid ground model, NASCAP matched the observed moderate charging (< 2 kV over
hundreds of seconds); see Table 3.
• Satellite Surface Potential Monitor (SSPM) experiments: Differential charging of dielectric
samples (SC1–1 to SC1–3) was predicted “very well—the dynamics as well as the equilibrium values,”
although a positive leakage current predicted for SC1–2 is absent in the data.
• Active-control (electron-beam) experiments: The model reproduced the tendency for the
spacecraft ground to be driven to the SC4–2 gun potential:
“These qualitative examples illustrate dramatically the success of the model in explaining
results previously poorly understood.”[2]
• Photosheath effects: Simulated photoelectron sheaths agreed with measurements obtained when
the SC10 boom was first deployed.
• HELIOS 1 rotating-boom potentials: The variation of boom potential with spin angle showed
“excellent qualitative agreement with experiment.”

Overall predictive capability: Stannard et al. conclude:

“The body of evidence compiled here lends weight to the conclusion that NASCAP does indeed
contain adequate representations of all the physical processes essential to the understanding of
spacecraft charging at geosynchronous altitudes.”[2]

4 Percent Differences Between Codes

Tables 1–6 compare absolute and differential charging predictions from NASCAP – 2K, NASCAP/GEO,
the SEE Handbook, and SPIS for a common GEO configuration (after Roussel[3]). Table 6 shows the
percent differences with respect to NASCAP – 2K.

5 Validation of SPIS
The validity of the Spacecraft Plasma Interaction System (SPIS) has been assessed through comparisons
with NASCAP – 2K and NASCAP/GEO in the context of transient simulations for a fictional spacecraft
in GEO. Roussel[3] provides the following observations:
• Potential distribution at 1000 seconds: Roussel notes,
“Although the color scales are different, it can be checked that potentials are globally rather
close. Yet, some differences can be seen. The optical solar reflector (OSR), the red strip
on the left side of the spacecraft chassis in NASCAP mode, does not appear to have such
a negative potential with SPIS. The gradient along the arrays is also smaller with SPIS.”
• Time evolution of potentials: The transient simulation of the spacecraft’s potential evolution
shows that,

2
 “The overall shape of SPIS potential evolution is very similar to the one of NASCAP-2k
and is quantitatively in between the NASCAP-2k and NASCAP/GEO values.”
• Surface potentials: As summarized in Table 4, Roussel remarks,
“SPIS results are always close to NASCAP’s, and within the range of results of the three
NASCAP codes, they are often closer to NASCAP-2k, similar to the time evolution of the
ground potential plotted above.”
These findings suggest that SPIS provides results consistent with those of NASCAP codes, particularly
NASCAP – 2K, for transient simulations of spacecraft charging in GEO environments.

6 Validation of Charge+
Merenda et al.[4] present three benchmark cases:
1. A dark, 2000-element GEO satellite simulation showed a 4.2 % difference compared to NASCAP – 2K
after 100 s.
2. An illuminated 1 m CubeSat in GEO exhibited polyimide and aluminum surface potential differences
of 3.4 % and 18.8 %, respectively. The simulation did not reach a steady state within 2500 s.
3. An internal charging scenario involved a dielectric sheet placed between two conductors. The setup
was exposed to a 10 nA/m2 monoenergetic 10 MeV electron beam. The analysis was performed at
a single time point to examine the internal electric field established.
The authors conclude:
“These simulations demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of Charge+.”[4]
However, experimental validation, sensitivity analyses, and long-time convergence studies are absent; thus
Charge+ is presently verified rather than fully validated.

7 Conclusions
• While EMA describes Charge+ as “validated,” a more accurate term would be “verified.” The
code demonstrates agreement with other models in specific cases but lacks experimental validation.
• The validation of surface charging relies on simplified, hypothetical spacecraft geometries, which do
not reflect the complexity of real-world scenarios.
• No sensitivity analysis has been conducted, and insufficient data is provided to replicate the simula-
tions, raising concerns about selective case studies being used to support claims.
• The absence of steady-state results in favor of incomplete transient simulations is questionable and
may indicate incomplete or selective reporting.
• Unlike the predictive assessments made for NASCAP, Charge+ lacks commentary on its predictive
capabilities, focusing instead on numerical agreement with other codes.
• The benchmark cases, such as the CubeSat and internal charging geometries, are overly simplistic and
do not account for the multi-material, convex, and complex features typical of real-world spacecraft.
• The one complex spacecraft geometry presented as evidence of Charge+’s validity lacks illumi-
nation, significantly simplifying the charging environment and limiting its applicability to realistic
scenarios.

3
8 Acronyms
EMA Electro Magnetic Applications, Inc.

GEO Geostationary Earth Orbit

DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

EMA3D Electromagnetic Analysis 3-D

IV Current–Voltage

NASCAP NASA Charging Analyzer Program

OSR Optical Solar Reflector

PVSA Photovoltaic Solar Array

SCATHA Spacecraft Charging at High Altitudes

SEE Space Environment and Effects (Handbook)

SPEAR Space Power Experiments Aboard Rockets

SPIS Spacecraft Plasma Interaction System

SSPM Satellite Surface Potential Monitor

4
Tables

5
 Table 1: Absolute potentials comparison (kV) for a fictional satellite in GEO. Data from [1].

Model Chassis Kapton UB Kapton LB OSR UB OSR LB Solar UB Solar LB Teflon UB Teflon LB Paint UB Paint LB
NASCAP/GEO -10.0 -8.2 -13.1 -8.23 -10.7 -5.2 -7.68 -7.5 -12.7 -8.3 -10.3
SEE Handbook -8.6 — — -7.3 -9.6 -3.6 -5.7 -6.8 -11.3 -7.5 -8.9

6
NASCAP-2K -12.0 -11.5 -14.4 -10.0 -13.7 -7.2 -10.8 -7.9 -14.0 -10.0 -12.2
Percent difference (%) wrt NASCAP-2K
NASCAP/GEO 18.2% 33.5% 9.5% 19.4% 24.6% 32.3% 33.8% 5.2% 9.7% 18.6% 16.9%
SEE Handbook 33.0% — — 31.3% 35.2% 66.7% 61.8% 15.0% 21.3% 28.6% 31.3%
 Table 2: Differential potentials comparison (kV) for a fictional satellite in GEO. Data from [1].

Model Kapton UB Kapton LB OSR UB OSR LB Solar UB Solar LB Teflon UB Teflon LB Paint UB Paint LB
NASCAP/GEO 1.8 -3.1 1.77 -0.7 4.8 2.3 2.5 -2.7 1.7 -0.3
SEE Handbook — — 1.3 -1.0 5.0 2.9 1.8 -2.7 1.1 -0.3

7
NASCAP-2K 0.5 -2.4 2.0 -1.7 4.8 1.2 4.1 -2.0 2.0 -0.2
Percent difference (%) wrt NASCAP-2K
NASCAP/GEO 113.0% 25.5% 12.2% 83.3% 0.0% 62.9% 48.5% 29.8% 16.2% 40.0%
SEE Handbook — — 42.4% 51.9% 4.1% 82.9% 78.0% 29.8% 58.1% 40.0%
Table 3: NASCAP equilibrium potentials for SCATHA Days 98 and 272 The terms One-Grid and Three-
Grid refer to two different NASCAP models of the SCATHA satelite.

Day Observed One-grid (kV) % Diff Three-grid (kV) % Diff

98 -1.4 -0.3 78.57 -1.5 7.14
272 -1.8 -0.5 72.22 -2.7 50.00

8
 Table 4: Charging comparison summary (absolute and differential) for fictional spacecraft, adapted from Roussel[3]. All numbers reportd in
kV

Quantity Type Code Chassis PVSA (Shade) OSR PVSA (Sunlit) S/C Body Top Antenna Circular
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Ant.

9
Absolute Charging (kV) NASCAP/GEO -10 -8.2 -13.1 -8.23 -10.7 -5.2 -7.68 -7.5 -12.7 -8.3 -10.3
SEE Handbook -8.6 -7.3 -9.6 -3.6 -5.7 -6.8 -11.3 -7.5 -11.3
NASCAP-2K -12 -11.5 -14.4 -10 -13.7 -7.2 -10.8 -7.9 -14 -7.9 -14
SPIS -10.9 -10.9 -13.9 -12.9 -11.7 -5.8 -6.4 -6.1 -7.9 -11.6 -9.8 -9.6 -9.8 -9.7 -10.9
Differential Charging (kV) NASCAP/GEO 1.8 -3.1 -0.7 1.77 2.3 4.8 2.5 -2.7 -0.3 1.7
SEE Handbook -1 -1.3 2.9 5 1.8 -2.7 -0.3 1.1
NASCAP-2K 0.5 -2.4 -1.7 2 1.2 4.8 -2 4.1 -0.2 2
SPIS 0 -3 -2 -0.8 4.5 5.1 4.8 -0.7 3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 0
 Table 6: Percent differences with respect to NASCAP-2K for fictional spacecraft. (excerpt from Roussel[3]).

Quantity Code Chassis PVSA (Shade) OSR PVSA (Sunlit) S/C Body Top Antenna Circular
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Ant.

10
Absolute NASCAP/GEO 18.18 33.50 9.45 19.42 24.59 32.26 33.77 5.19 9.74 -4.94 30.45
SEE Handbook 33.01 31.21 35.19 66.67 61.82 14.97 21.34 5.19 21.34
SPIS 9.61 5.36 3.53 21.54 51.16 0.00 18.75 -19.43 35.29
Differential NASCAP/GEO 113.04 25.45 83.33 12.20 62.86 0.00 1800.00 971.43 40.00 16.22
SEE Handbook 51.85 942.86 82.93 4.08 3800.00 971.43 40.00 58.06
SPIS 200.00 22.22 115.79 6.06 96.30 30.99 288.89 42.42
 Table 8: SPEAR–I conductance comparison.

Model Conductance (nS) % Diff vs. Experiment

Experiment 880 —
NASCAP/LEO 985 11.9
NASCAP-2K 886 0.68

11
References
[1] Davis, V. A., et al. “Validation of NASCAP-2K spacecraft-environment interactions calculations.” 8th
Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, 2004.

[2] Stannard, P., et al. “Validation of the NASCAP model using spaceflight data.” 20th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, 1982.

[3] Roussel, J. F., et al. “SPIS multitimescale and multiphysics capabilities: Development and application
to GEO charging and flashover modeling.” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 40, 183–191 (2012).

[4] Merenda, K. D., et al. “Spacecraft charging with EMA3D Charge.” Advances in Space Research, 72,
5626–5635 (2023).

[5] Davis, V. A. and Mandell, M. J. NASCAP-2K Version 4.3 Scientific Documentation.

AFRL-RV-PS-TR-2017-0001, 2016.

[6] Mullen, E. G. and Gussenhoven, M. S. “SCATHA Environmental Atlas.” Air Force Geophysics Labo-
ratory, AFGL-TR-83-0002, 1983.

[7] NASA Historical Data Book. (1988). United States: Scientific and Technical Information Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

12