4.5 Article

Hot carbon corona in Mars' upper thermosphere and exosphere: 2. Solar cycle and seasonal variability

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS
卷 119, 期 12, 页码 2487-2509

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JE004669

关键词

Mars; Mars corona; Mars atmosphere; hot atom; atmospheric loss; atmospheric dynamics

资金

  1. NASA Mars Fundamental Research Program [NNX09AL26G]
  2. NASA [NNX09AL26G, 114428] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents the variability over seasons (i.e., orbital position) and solar cycle of the Martian upper atmosphere and hot carbon corona. We investigate the production and distribution of energetic carbon atoms and the impacts on the total global hot carbon loss from dominant photochemical processes at five different cases: AL (aphelion and low solar activity), EL (equinox and low solar activity), EH (equinox and high solar activity), PL (perihelion and low solar activity), and PH (perihelion and high solar activity). We compare our results with previously published results but only on the limited cases due to the dearth of studies on solar EUV flux and seasonal variabilities. Photodissociation of CO and dissociative recombination of CO+ are generally regarded as the two most important source reactions for the production of hot atomic carbon. Of these two, photodissociation of CO is found to be the dominant source in all cases considered. To describe self-consistently the exosphere and the upper thermosphere, a 3-D kinetic particle simulator, the Adaptive Mesh Particle Simulator, and the 3-D Mars Thermosphere General Circulation Model are one-way coupled. The basic description of this hot carbon calculation can be found in the companion paper to this one. The spatial distributions and profiles of density and temperature and atmospheric loss rates are discussed for the cases considered. Finally, our computed global escape rate of hot carbon ranges from 5.28x10(23)s(-1) (AL) to 55.1x10(23)s(-1) (PL).

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

4.5
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