4.6 Article

PLASMA ENVIRONMENT AROUND COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AT PERIHELION: MODEL COMPARISON WITH ROSETTA DATA

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/30

关键词

comets: individual (comet 67P/CG); instrumentation: detectors; magnetic fields; plasmas solar wind

资金

  1. Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)
  2. NASA
  3. State of Bern
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation
  5. European Space Agency PRODEX program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The plasma environment near comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P/CG) is dynamically affected by various factors, including the incident solar wind and outgassing from the nucleus. The Rosetta spacecraft MAGnetometer (MAG) instrument observations near perihelion showed crossing events into a magnetic field-free region at about 170 km from the nucleus in 2015 July at 1.26 au from the Sun. At each crossing, the magnitude of the magnetic field dropped by more than 20 nT to near zero. We compared the Ion and Electron Sensor (IES) electron differential flux energy spectrum inside and outside the crossing boundaries. The IES observations show a modest but consistent drop in electron flux for energies between 40 eV and a few hundred eV at each cavity crossing event. This drop in the electron spectra might be due to the absence or attenuation of solar wind electrons inside the observed diamagnetic regions, which might or might not be a diamagnetic cavity. There is no apparent simple linear correlation between the electron count rate measured by the IES at different energies and the magnitude of the magnetic field, however; at all energies, the highest electron count rates are recorded at the highest magnetic field magnitudes. From model-data comparisons it seems that inside diamagnetic regions, pure coma photoelectrons are not sufficient to explain the observations and that a trapping mechanism and/or infused solar wind electrons are necessary to explain the observed electron fluxes.

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

4.6
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