4.3 Article

Conversion from HST ACS and STIS auroral counts into brightness, precipitated power, and radiated power for H2 giant planets

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017607

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO)
  2. Cassini Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The STIS and ACS instruments onboard HST are widely used to study the giant planet's aurora. Several assumptions have to be made to convert the instrumental counts into meaningful physical values (type and bandwidth of the filters, definition of the physical units, etc.), but these may significantly differ from one author to another, which makes it difficult to compare the auroral characteristics published in different studies. We present a method to convert the counts obtained in representative ACS and STIS imaging modes/filters used by the auroral scientific community to brightness, precipitated power and radiated power in the ultraviolet (700-1800 angstrom). Since hydrocarbon absorption may considerably affect the observed auroral emission, the conversion factors are determined for several attenuation levels. Several properties of the auroral emission have been determined: the fraction of the H-2 emission shortward and longward of the HLy-alpha line is 50.3% and 49.7% respectively, the contribution of HLy-alpha to the total unabsorbed auroral signal has been set to 9.1% and an input of 1 mW m(-2) produces 10 kR of H-2 in the Lyman and Werner bands. A first application sets the order of magnitude of Saturn's auroral characteristics in the total UV bandwidth to a brightness of 10 kR and an emitted power of similar to 2.8 GW. A second application uses published brightnesses of Europa's footprint to determine the current density associated with the Europa auroral spot: 0.21 and 0.045 mu A m(-2) assuming no hydrocarbon absorption and a color ratio of 2, respectively. Factors to extend the brightnesses observed with Cassini-UVIS to total H-2 UV brightnesses are also provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据