messenger observations of extreme space weather at mercury

Post on 24-Feb-2016

23 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

MESSENGER Observations of Extreme Space Weather at Mercury. James A. Slavin Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University of Michigan. SERENA – HEWG Key Largo May 14 , 2013. Solar System’s Most Dynamic Magnetosphere. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

MESSENGER Observationsof Extreme Space Weather at

Mercury

James A. SlavinDepartment of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences

University of Michigan

SERENA – HEWGKey Largo May 14, 2013

• Dipolar, axial aligned planetary magnetic field with the magnetic dipole offset 484 km north of the planetary center.

[Anderson et al., 2008; 2011]

• Small magnetosphere drive by reconnection rate 10x Earth; Large flux transfer events at the dayside magnetopause; Plasmoids in the magnetotail. [Slavin et al., 2009; 2010]

• Large-amplitude ULF waves in equatorial magnetosphere and non-linear Kelvin-Helmholtz waves on magnetopause boundary – but only on the dusk-side. [Boardsen et al., 2009; 2010; Sundberg et al., 2011; 2012]

Slavin et al. [2009]

Solar System’s Most Dynamic Magnetosphere

2011_104 Orbit

3August 17, 2011

Example – Tail Crossings

August 17, 2011

Crossing #1λ2/λ1 = 11.13λ3/λ2 = 6.99|BN| = 0.54 nT

Crossing #2λ2/λ1 = 11.38λ3/λ2 = 26.81|BN| = 3.15 nT

Crossing #3λ2/λ1 = 17.40λ3/λ2 = 6.31|BN| = 2.83 nT

Crossing #4λ2/λ1 = 19.70λ3/λ2 = 14.18|BN| = 0.57 nT

Crossing #5λ2/λ1 = 27.75λ3/λ2 = 4.67|BN| = 0.91 nT

Subscript 1 – Normal direction

Dayside Crossing – Rotational Discontinuity

August 17, 2011

λ2/λ1 = 25.18 λ3/λ2 = 17.41 |BN| = 15.94 nTSubscript 1 – Normal direction

6

Does Reconnection works differently at Mercury?

Earth: Strong dependence on interplanetary magnetic field direction. [Mozer et al., 2011]

Mercury: Reconnection is most intense when the interplanetary magnetic field is strong, but there is little or no dependence upon its direction [DiBraccio et al., 2012].

FTE identification

FTE identification

FTE Shower on April 11, 2011: IMF Bz > 0

December 15, 2008Slavin et al. (2012)

10

Plasmoid Shower in Current Sheet

Example: DOY 2012 135

G. A. DiBraccio

BX(nT)

BY(nT)

BZ(nT)

|B|(nT)

Borg et al. 2012

13 March 2013

MVA: DOY 2012 135

G. A. DiBraccio

λ2/λ1 = 16.34λ3/λ2 = 3.20

13 March 2013B1 (nT)

B2 (nT)

B2 (nT)

B3 (nT)

Mercury Tail Loading/Unloading

November 15th, 2012

Repeated 1-s 40-nT increases in the Bz component, followed by a gradual (~10 s) decrease back are observed in the night-side plasma sheet.

[Sundberg et al., 2012]

Dipolarizations

Ho et al. (2012)

Mystery of Mariner 10 Energetic Particle Bursts Solved:The Particles are 30 – 300 keV Electrons!

16

Why are extreme solar wind conditions important?

• Does the magnetopause reach the surface of Mercury when SW ram pressure become extreme? If so, what is the effect on Sputtering and Space Weathering rates?

• Are strong interplanetary magnetic fields with special

orientations required to “erode” the dayside magnetosphere like at Earth?

• Mercury’s metallic core extends to within 400 km of the surface; does electromagnetic induction in outer core play a significant role in shielding Mercury from the solar wind?

• What effects do these extreme conditions have on magnetospheric configuration and dynamics?

18

November 23, 2011

19

Magnetosphere – Core Coupling at Mercury

20

Induction Currents in Outer Layer of Core

21

Stronger Solar Wind Inputs Stronger Induction

22

Reconnection Vs. Induction

23

Effect of Reconnection Vs. Conducting Core on Rss

[Schubert and Hood, 1979][Goldstein and Suess, 1979]

[Slavin and Holzer, 1979]

24

Effect of Induction on Magnetopause Altitude

No Induction& No Erosion:Pss ~ 1/Rss**6

Induction

[Winslow et al., 2012] [Glassmeier et al., 2007]

Magnetopause Erosion by

Reconnection

Magnetopause Inflation by Induction

25

Reconnection Vs. Induction

Magnetospheric Structure• Northward displacement of

magnetic equator implies substantial N-S asymmetry in the surface field.

• Surface field at north pole is 3.4x larger than at south pole.

• Surface area of open magnetic flux in the southern hemisphere is 4x larger than in the northern hemisphere.

• Weak southern polar field and larger open field area imply greater particle-stimulated surface sputtering in the southern polar regions.

Anderson et al. [this meeting]

27

Effect of 0.2 RM Magnetic Dipole Offset

BepiColombo will Explore Mercury’s Exposed Southern Hemisphere!

28

top related