Whistler mode waves upstream of Saturn

Whistler-mode waves are generated within and can propagate upstream of collisionless shocks. They are known to play a role in electron thermodynamics/acceleration and, under certain conditions, are markedly observed as wave trains preceding the shock ramp. In this paper, we take advantage of Cassini's presence at ~10 AU to explore the importance of whistler-mode waves in a parameter regime typically characterized by higher Mach number (median of ~14) shocks, as well as a significantly different IMF structure, compared to near Earth. We identify electromagnetic precursors preceding a small subset of bow shock crossings with properties which are consistent with whistler-mode waves. We find these monochromatic, low-frequency, circularly-polarized waves to have a typical frequency range of 0.2 - 0.4 Hz in the spacecraft frame. This is due to the lower ion and electron cyclotron frequencies near Saturn, between which whistler waves can develop. The waves are also observed as predominantly right-handed in the spacecraft frame, the opposite sense to what is typically observed near Earth. This is attributed to the weaker Doppler shift, owing to the large angle between the solar wind velocity and magnetic field vectors at 10 AU. Our results on the low occurrence of whistler waves upstream of Saturn also underpins the predominantly supercritical bow shock of Saturn.Comment: Published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (January 2017) 21 pages, 4 figure

Thank You to Our 2018 Peer Reviewers

On behalf of the authors and readers of Reviews of Geophysics, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the broader scientific community, the Editors wish to wholeheartedly thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Reviews of Geophysics in 2018. Reviews of Geophysics is the top rated journal in Geophysics and Geochemistry and it could not exist without your investment of time and effort, lending your expertise to ensure that the papers published in this journal meet the standards that the research community expects for it. We sincerely appreciate the time spent reading and commenting on manuscripts, and we are very grateful for your willingness and readiness to serve in this role. Reviews of Geophysics published 20 review papers and an editorial in 2018, covering most of the AGU Section topics, and for this we were able to rely on the efforts of 85 dedicated reviewers from 20 countries. Many reviewers answered the call multiple times. Thank you again. We look forward to a 2019 of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public

Solar Wind Electron Interaction with the Dayside Lunar Surface and Crustal Magnetic Fields: Evidence for Precursor Effects

Electron distributions measured by Lunar Prospector above the dayside lunar surface in the solar wind often have an energy dependent loss cone, inconsistent with adiabatic magnetic reflection. Energy dependent reflection suggests the presence of downward parallel electric fields below the spacecraft, possibly indicating the presence of a standing electrostatic structure. Many electron distributions contain apparent low energy (<100 eV) upwardgoing conics (58% of the time) and beams (12% of the time), primarily in regions with non-zero crustal magnetic fields, implying the presence of parallel electric fields and/or wave-particle interactions below the spacecraft. Some, but not all, of the observed energy dependence comes from the energy gained during reflection from a moving obstacle; correctly characterizing electron reflection requires the use of the proper reference frame. Nonadiabatic reflection may also play a role, but cannot fully explain observations. In cases with upward-going beams, we observe partial isotropization of incoming solar wind electrons, possibly indicating streaming and/or whistler instabilities. The Moon may therefore influence solar wind plasma well upstream from its surface. Magnetic anomaly interactions and/or non-monotonic near surface potentials provide the most likely candidates to produce the observed precursor effects, which may help ensure quasi-neutrality upstream from the Moon

Appreciation of Peer Reviewers for 2017

On behalf of the authors and readers of Reviews of Geophysics, the American Geophysical Union, and the broader scientific community, the Editors wish to wholeheartedly thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Reviews of Geophysics in 2017. The journal could not exist without your investment of time and effort, lending your expertise to ensure that the papers published in this journal meet the standards that the research community expects for it. We sincerely appreciate all that you do, and we are very grateful for your willingness and readiness to serve in this role.Plain Language SummaryOn behalf of the authors and readers of Reviews of Geophysics, the American Geophysical Union, and the broader scientific community, the Editors wish to wholeheartedly thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Reviews of Geophysics in 2017. The journal could not exist without your investment of time and effort, lending your expertise to ensure that the papers published in this journal meet the standards that the research community expects for it. We sincerely appreciate all that you do, and we are very grateful for your willingness and readiness to serve in this role. Reviews of Geophysics published 29 review papers, a commentary and an editorial in 2017, covering most of the AGU Section topics, and for this we were able to rely on the efforts of 99 dedicated reviewers. Many reviewers answered the call multiple times. Thank you again. We look forward to a 2018 of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.Key PointThe Reviews of Geophysics Editors thank all the peer reviewers from 2017Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147789/1/rog20174.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147789/2/rog20174_am.pd

Impact demagnetization of the Martian crust: Current knowledge and future directions

The paleomagnetism of the Martian crust has important implications for the history of the dynamo, the intensity of the ancient magnetic field, and the composition of the crust. Modification of crustal magnetization by impact cratering is evident from the observed lack of a measurable crustal field (at spacecraft altitude) within the youngest large impact basins (e.g., Hellas, Argyre and Isidis). It is hoped that comparisons of the magnetic intensity over impact structures, forward modeling of subsurface magnetization, and experimental results of pressure-induced demagnetization of rocks and minerals will provide constraints on the primary magnetic mineralogy in the Martian crust. Such an effort requires: (i) accurate knowledge of the spatial distribution of the shock pressures around impact basins, (ii) crustal magnetic intensity maps of adequate resolution over impact structures, and (iii) determination of demagnetization properties for individual rocks and minerals under compression. In this work, we evaluate the current understanding of these three conditions and compile the available experimental pressure demagnetization data on samples bearing (titano-) magnetite, (titano-) hematite, and pyrrhotite. We find that all samples demagnetize substantially at pressures of a few GPa and that the available data support significant modification of the crustal magnetic field from both large and small impact events. However, the amount of demagnetization with applied pressure does not vary significantly among the possible carrier phases. Therefore, the presence of individual mineral phases on Mars cannot be determined from azimuthally averaged demagnetization profiles over impact basins at present. The identification of magnetic mineralogy on Mars will require more data on pressure demagnetization of thermoremanent magnetization and forward modeling of the crustal field subject to a range of plausible initial field and demagnetization patterns.United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNG04GD17G)United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX07AQ69G)United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX06AD14G

Using machine learning to characterize solar wind driving of convection in the terrestrial magnetotail lobes

In order to quantitatively investigate the mechanism of how magnetospheric convection is driven in the region of magnetotail lobes on a global scale, we analyzed data from the ARTEMIS spacecraft in the deep tail and data from the Cluster spacecraft in the near and mid-tail regions. Our previous work revealed that, in the lobes near the Moon’s orbit, the convection can be estimated by using ARTEMIS measurements of lunar ions’ velocity. Based on that, in this paper, we applied machine learning models to these measurements to determine which upstream solar wind parameters significantly drive the lobe convection in magnetotail regions, to help us understand the mechanism that controls the dynamics of the tail lobes. The results demonstrate that the correlations between the predicted and measured convection velocities for the machine learning models (&gt;0.75) are superior to those of the multiple linear regression model (∼0.23–0.43) in the testing dataset. The systematic analysis shows that the IMF and magnetospheric activity play an important role in influencing plasma convection in the global magnetotail lobes

Lunar Pickup Ions Observed by ARTEMIS: Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Constraints on Species and Source Locations

ARTEMIS observes pickup ions around the Moon, at distances of up to 20,000 km from the surface. The observed ions form a plume with a narrow spatial and angular extent, generally seen in a single energy/angle bin of the ESA instrument. Though ARTEMIS has no mass resolution capability, we can utilize the analytically describable characteristics of pickup ion trajectories to constrain the possible ion masses that can reach the spacecraft at the observation location in the correct energy/angle bin. We find that most of the observations are consistent with a mass range of approx. 20-45 amu, with a smaller fraction consistent with higher masses, and very few consistent with masses below 15 amu. With the assumption that the highest fluxes of pickup ions come from near the surface, the observations favor mass ranges of approx. 20-24 and approx. 36-40 amu. Although many of the observations have properties consistent with a surface or near-surface release of ions, some do not, suggesting that at least some of the observed ions have an exospheric source. Of all the proposed sources for ions and neutrals about the Moon, the pickup ion flux measured by ARTEMIS correlates best with the solar wind proton flux, indicating that sputtering plays a key role in either directly producing ions from the surface, or producing neutrals that subsequently become ionized

Lunar Surface Electric Potential Changes Associated with Traversals through the Earth's Foreshock

We report an analysis of one year of Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment (SIDE) Total Ion Detector (TID) resonance events observed between January 1972 and January 1973. The study includes only those events during which upstream solar wind conditions were readily available. The analysis shows that these events are associated with lunar traversals through the dawn flank of the terrestrial magnetospheric bow shock. We propose that the events result from an increase in lunar surface electric potential effected by secondary electron emission due to primary electrons in the Earth's foreshock region (although primary ions may play a role as well). This work establishes (1) the lunar surface potential changes as the Moon moves through the terrestrial bow shock, (2) the lunar surface achieves potentials in the upstream foreshock region that differ from those in the downstream magnetosheath region, (3) these differences can be explained by the presence of energetic electron beams in the upstream foreshock region and (4) if this explanation is correct, the location of the Moon with respect to the terrestrial bow shock influences lunar surface potential

CME Evolution in the Structured Heliosphere and Effects at Earth and Mars During Solar Minimum

The activity of the Sun alternates between a solar minimum and a solar maximum, the former corresponding to a period of "quieter" status of the heliosphere. During solar minimum, it is in principle more straightforward to follow eruptive events and solar wind structures from their birth at the Sun throughout their interplanetary journey. In this paper, we report analysis of the origin, evolution, and heliospheric impact of a series of solar transient events that took place during the second half of August 2018, i.e. in the midst of the late declining phase of Solar Cycle 24. In particular, we focus on two successive coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and a following high-speed stream (HSS) on their way towards Earth and Mars. We find that the first CME impacted both planets, whilst the second caused a strong magnetic storm at Earth and went on to miss Mars, which nevertheless experienced space weather effects from the stream interacting region (SIR) preceding the HSS. Analysis of remote-sensing and in-situ data supported by heliospheric modelling suggests that CME--HSS interaction resulted in the second CME rotating and deflecting in interplanetary space, highlighting that accurately reproducing the ambient solar wind is crucial even during "simpler" solar minimum periods. Lastly, we discuss the upstream solar wind conditions and transient structures responsible for driving space weather effects at Earth and Mars.Comment: 27 pages, 7 figures, 1 table, accepted for publication in Space Weathe

Advancing Our Understanding of Martian Proton Aurora through a Coordinated Multi-Model Comparison Campaign

Proton aurora are the most commonly observed yet least studied type of aurora at Mars. In order to better understand the physics and driving processes of Martian proton aurora, we undertake a multi-model comparison campaign. We compare results from four different proton/hydrogen precipitation models with unique abilities to represent Martian proton aurora: Jolitz model (3-D Monte Carlo), Kallio model (3-D Monte Carlo), Bisikalo/Shematovich et al. model (1-D kinetic Monte Carlo), and Gronoff et al. model (1-D kinetic). This campaign is divided into two steps: an inter-model comparison and a data-model comparison. The inter-model comparison entails modeling five different representative cases using similar constraints in order to better understand the capabilities and limitations of each of the models. Through this step we find that the two primary variables affecting proton aurora are the incident solar wind particle flux and velocity. In the data-model comparison, we assess the robustness of each model based on its ability to reproduce a MAVEN/IUVS proton aurora observation. All models are able to effectively simulate the data. Variations in modeled intensity and peak altitude can be attributed to differences in model capabilities/solving techniques and input assumptions (e.g., cross sections, 3-D versus 1-D solvers, and implementation of the relevant physics and processes). The good match between the observations and multiple models gives a measure of confidence that the appropriate physical processes and their associated parameters have been correctly identified and provides insight into the key physics that should be incorporated in future models