Search for: All records

On the bow shock in front of Earth’s magnetosphere flows a current due to the curl of the interplanetary magnetic field across the shock. The closure of this current remains uncertain; it is unknown whether the bow shock current closes with the Chapman-Ferraro current system on the magnetopause, along magnetic field lines into the ionosphere, through the magnetosheath, or some combination thereof. We present simultaneous observations from Magnetosphere Multiscale (MMS), AMPERE, and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) during a period of strong B y , weakly negative B z , and very small B x . This IMF orientation should lead to a bow shock current flowing mostly south to north on the shock. AMPERE shows a current poleward of the Region 1 and Region 2 Birkeland currents flowing into the northern polar cap and out of the south, the correct polarity for bow shock current to be closing along open field lines. A southern Defense Meteorological Satellite Program F18 flyover confirms that this current is poleward of the convection reversal boundary. Additionally, we investigate the bow shock current closure for the above-mentioned solar wind conditions using an MHD simulation of the event. We compare the magnitude of the modeled bow shock current due to the IMF B y component to the magnitude of the modeled high-latitude current that corresponds to the real current observed in AMPERE and by Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. In the simulation, the current poleward of the Region 1 currents is about 37% as large as the bow shock I z in the northern ionosphere and 60% in the south. We conclude that the evidence points to at least a partial closure of the bow shock current through the ionosphere. 

During intense geomagnetic storms, the magnetopause can move in as far as geosynchronous orbit, leaving the satellites in that orbit out in the magnetosheath. Spacecraft operators turn to numerical models to predict the response of the magnetopause to solar wind conditions, but the predictions of the models are not always accurate. This study investigates four storms with a magnetopause crossing by at least one GOES satellite, using four magnetohydrodynamic models at NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center to simulate the events, and analyzes the results to investigate the reasons for errors in the predictions. Two main reasons can explain most of the erroneous predictions. First, the solar wind input to the simulations often contains features measured near the L1 point that did not eventually arrive at Earth; incorrect predictions during such periods are due to the solar wind input rather than to the models themselves. Second, while the models do well when the primary driver of magnetopause motion is a variation in the solar wind density, they tend to overpredict or underpredict the integrated Birkeland currents and their effects during times of strong negative interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)B_z, leading to poorer prediction capability. Coupling the MHD codes to a ring current model, when such a coupling is available, generally will improve the predictions but will not always entirely correct them. More work is needed to fully characterize the response of each code under strong southward IMF conditions as it relates to prediction of magnetopause location.

 

The accurate determination of auroral precipitation in global models has remained a daunting and rather inexplicable obstacle. Understanding the calculation and balance of multiple sources that constitute the aurora, and their eventual conversion into ionospheric electrical conductance, is critical for improved prediction of space weather events. In this study, we present a semi‐physical global modeling approach that characterizes contributions by four types of precipitation—monoenergetic, broadband, electron, and ion diffuse—to ionospheric electrodynamics. The model uses a combination of adiabatic kinetic theory and loss parameters derived from historical energy flux patterns to estimate auroral precipitation from magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) quantities. It then converts them into ionospheric conductance that is used to compute the ionospheric feedback to the magnetosphere. The model has been employed to simulate the 5–7 April 2010Galaxy15space weather event. Comparison of auroral fluxes show good agreement with observational data sets like NOAA‐DMSP and OVATION Prime. The study shows a dominant contribution by electron diffuse precipitation, accounting for ∼74% of the auroral energy flux. However, contributions by monoenergetic and broadband sources dominate during times of active upstream solar conditions, providing for up to 61% of the total hemispheric power. The study also finds a greater role played by broadband precipitation in ionospheric electrodynamics which accounts for ∼31% of the Pedersen conductance.

 

This white paper is on the HMCS Firefly mission concept study. Firefly focuses on the global structure and dynamics of the Sun's interior, the generation of solar magnetic fields, the deciphering of the solar cycle, the conditions leading to the explosive activity, and the structure and dynamics of the corona as it drives the heliosphere.