Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Geomagnetic”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,099 records · Page 61
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

The EDR Inflow Region of a Reconnecting Current Sheet in the Geomagnetic Tail

On 6 July 2017, the four Magnetospheric Multiscale spacecrafts were positioned within an electron diffusion region (EDR) just northward of a reconnection X line. The EDR was identified by electron crescent distributions, out-of-plane current, and energy conversion. From this position, the three spacecrafts closest to the X line (within about three electron inertial lengths) were able to accurately measure the reconnection electric field and the electron inflow velocity. The reconnection rates derived from the electric field and inflow velocity measurements agree with theoretical estimates (0.11–0.17) and a previous measurement of EM in a tail reconnection event on 11 July 2017.

Energy conversion↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tracking Magnetic Perturbations, dB/dt and Geomagnetic Indices for Geospace Storms on a Routine Basis at the CCMC

The first comprehensive assessment of geospace model skill to specify magnetic perturbations (delta-B) on the ground and their time derivative (dB/dt) was performed at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center starting in 2010. This study resulted in the addition of the Space Weather Modling Framework to the suite of operational models run by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). Since then, magnetic pertubations have been made available on a larger scale for Run-on-Request simulations in geospace at the CCMC. We will demonstrate recent additions to the suite of analysis tools and model results including magnetic perturbations at more stations and on a grid of positions from both, original model outputs (SWMF using preset run configurations) and post-processed calculations using CalcDeltaB and their analysis and visualization using the open-source Kamodo data access and analysis suite and the Comprehensive Assessment of Models and Events using Library tools (CAMEL) application.

Lutz Rastaetter↗
NASA NTRS2023

Hemispheric Symmetry and Asymmetry of Poleward Moving Radar Auroral Forms (PMRAFs) and Associated Polar Cap Patches During a Geomagnetic Storm

Magnetopause reconnection is known to impact the dayside ionosphere by driving fast ionospheric flows, auroral transients, and high density plasma structures named polar cap patches. However, most of the observed reconnection impact is limited to one hemisphere, and a question arises as to how symmetric the impact is between hemispheres.

hemispheric symmetry/asymmetry↗
NASA NTRS2023

Comparative Accuracies of Models for Drag Prediction During Geomagnetically Disturbed Periods: A First Principles Model Versus Empirical Models

We examine the accuracy of density prediction by the first principles model Thermosphere Ionosphere Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIEGCM) developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and compare it to the accuracy of three empirical models: Jacchia 71, the Naval Research Laboratory Mass Spectrometer Incoherent Scatter Extended 2000 (NRLMSIS), Jacchia 1971, and Jacchia-Bowman 2008. Comparisons are made for three large storms: the October 2003 storm, the March 2013 storm, and the March 2015 storm. To evaluate the accuracy of these models we use tracking data for nine space objects in low Earth orbit. Additionally, we evaluate the accuracy of the TIEGCM and NRLMSIS with data from high precision accelerometers on the Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) and Gravity field and Circulation Explorer (GOCE) satellites. The goal is to assess the use of a first principles model as a potential tool for forecasting satellite drag during large magnetic storms. For the storms considered, we found the TIEGCM, JB2008, and NRLMSIS models to be substantially more accurate than the Jacchia 71 model. The accuracies of the TIEGCM and JB2008 models were similar, but overall, the TIEGCM was more accurate. We found smaller differences for TIEGCM versus CHAMP than for NRLMIS for the Halloween Storm, and smaller differences than results published for JB2008 and the assimilative model HASDM. The empirical models are at present more practical for operational purposes, but the TIEGCM, developed as a research model, with a greater focus on operational use offers the potential for improved utility during stressing conditions.

R. L. Walterscheid↗