Search for: All records

Abstract On 3 February 2022, at 18:13 UTC, SpaceX launched and a short time later deployed 49 Starlink satellites at an orbit altitude between 210 and 320 km. The satellites were meant to be further raised to 550 km. However, the deployment took place during the main phase of a moderate geomagnetic storm, and another moderate storm occurred on the next day. The resulting increase in atmospheric drag led to 38 out of the 49 satellites reentering the atmosphere in the following days. In this work, we use both observations and simulations to perform a detailed investigation of the thermospheric conditions during this storm. Observations at higher altitudes, by Swarm‐A (∼438 km, 09/21 Local Time [LT]) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow‐On (∼505 km, 06/18 LT) missions show that during the main phase of the storms the neutral mass density increased by 110% and 120%, respectively. The storm‐time enhancement extended to middle and low latitudes and was stronger in the northern hemisphere. To further investigate the thermospheric variations, we used six empirical and first‐principle numerical models. We found the models captured the upper and lower thermosphere changes, however, their simulated density enhancements differ by up to 70%. Further, the models showed that at the low orbital altitudes of the Starlink satellites (i.e., 200–300 km) the global averaged storm‐time density enhancement reached up to ∼35%–60%. Although such storm effects are far from the largest, they seem to be responsible for the reentry of the 38 satellites. 

The specification and prediction of density fluctuations in the thermosphere, especially during geomagnetic storms, is a key challenge for space weather observations and modeling. It is of great operational importance for tracking objects orbiting in near-Earth space. For low-Earth orbit, variations in neutral density represent the most important uncertainty for propagation and prediction of satellite orbits. An international conference in 2018 conducted under the auspices of the NASA Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) included a workshop on neutral density modeling, using both empirical and numerical methods, and resulted in the organization of an initial effort of model comparison and evaluation. Here, we present an updated metric for model assessment under geomagnetic storm conditions by dividing a storm in four phases with respect to the time of minimum Dst and then calculating the mean density ratios and standard deviations and correlations. Comparisons between three empirical (NRLMSISE-00, JB2008 and DTM2013) and two first-principles models (TIE-GCM and CTIPe) and neutral density data sets that include measurements by the CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE satellites for 13 storms are presented. The models all show reduced performance during storms, notably much increased standard deviations, but DTM2013, JB2008 and CTIPe did not on average reveal a significant bias in the four phases of our metric. DTM2013 and TIE-GCM driven with the Weimer model achieved the best results taking the entire storm event into account, while NRLMSISE-00 systematically and significantly underestimates the storm densities. Numerical models are still catching up to empirical methods on a statistical basis, but as their drivers become more accurate and they become available at higher resolutions, they will surpass them in the foreseeable future. 

As the number of satellites in low Earth orbit grows by leaps and bounds, accurate calculations of the effects of atmospheric drag on their trajectories are becoming critically important. 

Abstract The upper boundary height of the traditional community general circulation model of the ionosphere‐thermosphere system is too low to be applied to the topside ionosphere/thermosphere study. In this study, the National Center for Atmospheric Research Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (NCAR‐TIEGCM) was successfully extended upward by four scale heights from 400–600 km to 700–1,200 km depending on solar activity, named TIEGCM‐X. The topside ionosphere and thermosphere simulated by TIEGCM‐X agree well with the observations derived from a topside sounder and satellite drag data. In addition, the neutral density, temperature, and electron density simulated by TIEGCM‐X are morphologically consistent with the NCAR‐TIEGCM simulations before extension. The latitude‐altitude distribution of the equatorial ionization anomaly derived from TIEGCM‐X is more reasonable. During geomagnetic storm events, the thermospheric responses of TIEGCM‐X are similar to NCAR‐TIEGCM. However, the ionospheric storm effects in TIEGCM‐X are stronger than those in NCAR‐TIEGCM and are even opposites at some middle and low latitudes due to the presence of more closed magnetic field lines. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program observations prove that the ionospheric storm effect of TIEGCM‐X is more reasonable. The well‐validated TIEGCM‐X has significant potential applications in ionospheric/thermospheric studies, such as the responses to storms, low‐latitude dynamics, and data assimilation. 

Abstract Geomagnetic indices are convenient quantities that distill the complicated physics of some region or aspect of near‐Earth space into a single parameter. Most of the best‐known indices are calculated from ground‐based magnetometer data sets, such as Dst, SYM‐H, Kp, AE, AL, and PC. Many models have been created that predict the values of these indices, often using solar wind measurements upstream from Earth as the input variables to the calculation. This document reviews the current state of models that predict geomagnetic indices and the methods used to assess their ability to reproduce the target index time series. These existing methods are synthesized into a baseline collection of metrics for benchmarking a new or updated geomagnetic index prediction model. These methods fall into two categories: (1) fit performance metrics such as root‐mean‐square error and mean absolute error that are applied to a time series comparison of model output and observations and (2) event detection performance metrics such as Heidke Skill Score and probability of detection that are derived from a contingency table that compares model and observation values exceeding (or not) a threshold value. A few examples of codes being used with this set of metrics are presented, and other aspects of metrics assessment best practices, limitations, and uncertainties are discussed, including several caveats to consider when using geomagnetic indices.