4.5 Article

MARSIS remote sounding of localized density structures in the dayside Martian ionosphere: A study of controlling parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS
卷 120, 期 9, 页码 8125-8145

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JA021486

关键词

Martian ionosphere; magnetic anomalies; density structures

资金

  1. Jet Propulsion Laboratory [1224107]
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/M001059/1]
  3. SNSB grant [162/14]
  4. Vetenskapsradet grant [621-2014-5526]
  5. STFC [ST/M001059/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/M001059/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhanced topside electron densities in the dayside Martian ionosphere have been repetitively observed in areas of near-radial crustal magnetic fields, for periods of tens of days, indicating their long-term spatial and temporal stability despite changing solar wind conditions. We perform a statistical study of these density structures using the ionospheric mode of the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding (MARSIS) onboard Mars Express. We estimate the apparent extents of these structures relative to the altitude of the surrounding ionosphere. The apex of the density structures often lies higher than the surrounding ionosphere (median vertical extent of 18km), which indicates upwellings. These structures are much wider than they are high, with latitudinal scales of several degrees. The radar reflector regions are observed above both moderate and strong magnetic anomalies, and their precise locations and latitudinal extents match quite well with the locations and latitudinal extents of magnetic structures of given magnetic polarity (oblique to vertical fields), which happen to be regions where the field lines are open part of the time. The majority of the density structures occur in regions where ionospheric plasma is dominant, indicating closed field regions shielded from shocked solar wind plasma.

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