4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Structure and evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3148

关键词

magnetic fields; plasmas; methods: data analysis; comets: individual: 67P

资金

  1. German Ministerium fur Wirtschaft und Energie
  2. Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt [50QP 1401]
  3. federal state of Bern
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation
  5. ESA PRODEX program
  6. CNES
  7. ANR [ANR-15-CE31-0009-01]
  8. NASA
  9. CNRS
  10. Observatoire de Paris and Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse
  11. Imperial College London
  12. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
  13. STFC [ST/K001051/1, ST/H002383/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  14. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001051/1, ST/H002383/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  15. UK Space Agency [ST/P002250/1, ST/K001698/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The long duration of the Rosetta mission allows us to study the evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in detail. From 2015 April to 2016 February 665 intervals could be identified where Rosetta was located in a zero-magnetic-field region. We study the temporal and spatial distribution of this cavity and its boundary and conclude that the cavity properties depend on the long-term trend of the outgassing rate, but do not respond to transient events at the spacecraft location, such as outbursts or high neutral densities. Using an empirical model of the outgassing rate, we find a functional relationship between the outgassing rate and the distance of the cavity to the nucleus. There is also no indication that this unexpectedly large distance is related to unusual solar wind conditions. Because the deduced shape of the cavity boundary is roughly elliptical on small scales and the distances of the boundary from the nucleus are much larger than expected we conclude that the events observed by Rosetta are due to a moving instability of the cavity boundary itself.

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

4.7
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