4.5 Article

Formation processes of flux ropes downstream from Martian crustal magnetic fields inferred from Grad-Shafranov reconstruction

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JA019943

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Global COE Program of Nagoya University Quest for Fundamental Principles in the Universe (QFPU) from JSPS
  3. MEXT of Japan
  4. NASA [1000013136]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24740337, 26800255] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied the Grad-Shafranov reconstruction (GSR) technique to Martian magnetic flux ropes observed downstream from strong crustal magnetic fields in the southern hemisphere. The GSR technique can provide a two-dimensional axial magnetic field map as well as the axial orientation of flux ropes from single-spacecraft data under assumptions that the structure is magnetohydrostatic and time independent. The reconstructed structures, including their orientation, allowed us to evaluate possible formation processes for the flux ropes. We reconstructed 297 magnetic flux ropes observed by Mars Global Surveyor between April 1999 and November 2006. Based on characteristics of their geometrical axial orientation and transverse magnetic field topology, we found that they can be mainly distinguished according to whether draped interplanetary magnetic fields overlaying the crustal magnetic fields are involved or not. Approximately two thirds of the flux ropes can be formed by magnetic reconnection between neighboring crustal magnetic fields attached to the surface. The remaining events seem to require magnetic reconnection between crustal and overlaid draped magnetic fields. The latter scenario should allow planetary ions to be transferred from closed magnetic flux tube to flux tubes connected to interplanetary space, allowing atmospheric ions to escape from Mars. We quantitatively evaluate lower limits on potential ion escape rates from Mars owing to magnetic flux ropes.

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