Abstract
The dynamics of Earth’s magnetopause, driven by several different external/internal physical processes, plays a major role in the geospace energy budget. Given magnetopause motion couples across many space plasma regions, numerous forms of observations may provide valuable information in understanding these dynamics and their impacts. In-situ multi-point spacecraft measurements measure the local plasma environment, dynamics and processes; with upcoming swarms providing the possibility of improved spatiotemporal reconstruction of dynamical phenomena, and multi-mission conjunctions advancing understanding of the “mesoscale” coupling across the geospace “system of systems.” Soft X-ray imaging of the magnetopause should enable boundary motion to be directly remote sensed for the first time. Indirect remote sensing capabilities might be enabled through the field-aligned currents associated with disturbances to the magnetopause; by harnessing data from satellite mega-constellations in low-Earth orbit, and taking advantage of upgraded auroral imaging and ionospheric radar technology. Finally, increased numbers of closely-spaced ground magnetometers in both hemispheres may help discriminate between high-latitude processes in what has previously been a “zone of confusion.” Bringing together these multiple modes of observations for studying magnetopause dynamics is crucial. These may also be aided by advanced data processing techniques, such as physics-based inversions and machine learning methods, along with comparisons to increasingly sophisticated geospace assimilative models and simulations.
1 Introduction
Earth’s magnetopause, depicted in Figure 1A, is the interface of the solar–terrestrial interaction, hence mediates the flow of mass, momentum, and energy between the solar wind and geospace. As this interaction is responsible for the myriad of phenomena that can severely impact vital infrastructure, collectively known as space weather, understanding physical processes at the magnetopause and their system-wide effects is of utmost importance. The magnetopause is observed to be in almost continual motion. Alongside magnetic reconnection (), the wave-like motion of the magnetopause constitutes one of the major energy transfer mechanisms in the solar–terrestrial interaction (). These magnetopause motions affect auroral, ionospheric, outer radiation belt, and trapped magnetospheric plasmas — either directly or indirectly through associated ultra-low frequency (ULF) waves (e.g., Sibeck, 1990; ).
FIGURE 1
The boundary location in steady state is dictated by a balance of pressures (thermal, magnetic, and dynamic) on both sides of the magnetopause. Imbalances which lead to magnetopause motion are typically thought of as being externally driven, e.g., by variations in the upstream flow pressure (Potemra et al., 1989; Sibeck et al., 1989; ; Viall et al., 2009), the velocity shear as the solar wind flows around the magnetosphere (Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability, KHI; ; ; ), or reconnection with the interplanetary magnetic field altering the dayside magnetic flux (; ). However, internal processes such as the drift-mirror instability may also generate pressure changes that drive boundary dynamics (; Nykyri et al., 2021). Several of these driving processes may occur simultaneously and even modify one another, making observations hard to disentangle (e.g., ; ).
The wave-like motion of the magnetopause is well approximated by magnetohydrodynamic surface wave theory (see recent review of ). The interplay of inertial, damping, and restoring forces on the dayside magnetopause predicts a response to direct driving (Smit, 1968; ; ; ) alongside resonant standing surface waves from ionospheric reflection (; Plaschke and Glassmeier, 2011; ). In contrast, on the magnetopause flanks where KH-waves dominate, periodicities are shorter (; ). Corresponding wavelengths along the boundary span a wide spatial range, ().
Since magnetopause dynamics couple across many regions of geospace, there are numerous means of directly and indirectly observing the processes occurring and their consequences. In this paper we outline current and future observational capabilities at Earth, grouped by different target regions of geospace. We highlight new/improved directions to the field for unveiling magnetopause dynamics across different modes of observation and how these may aid our understanding of the boundary’s global importance to the geospace energy budget.
2 Solar wind – magnetosphere interface
2.1 Multi-point in-situ measurements
In-situ spacecraft provide measurements of the physical conditions present at their location, such as particle distributions/moments and (DC/AC) electric/magnetic fields. Single spacecraft cannot unambiguously separate variations in space and time. Four spacecraft are the minimum required to uniquely resolve 3D structure (Paschmann and Daly, 1998), methods for which have been applied to the Cluster, MMS, and THEMIS missions. These typically assume first-order derivatives and planar structures over spacecraft separation scales. For studying magnetopause dynamics, the times the boundary passed over each spacecraft allow estimation of its local thickness and motion (Paschmann et al., 2005; Plaschke et al., 2009). Furthermore, simultaneous observations around the moving boundary allow comparison of spatial patterns against theory (e.g., ; Plaschke et al., 2013; ; ).
Multi-spacecraft missions to date have typically focused on one scale at a time (e.g., fluid/ion for Cluster, ion/electron for MMS), achieved through precisely-controlled formations. In contrast, upcoming missions such as HelioSwarm () and the Plasma Observatory concept (Retinò et al., 2022) instead propose semi-autonomous swarms of 7+ spacecraft broadly separated across a variety of plasma scales. Swarms will allow unprecedented spatiotemporal reconstruction of magnetopause dynamics, e.g., KH roll-up vortices as in Figure 1C, while also probing important cross-scale physics.
While multi-spacecraft missions provide great detail of local structures and physical processes, geospace constitutes a “system of systems” with many different plasma populations that feedback on one another leading to more complex emergent/collective dynamical behaviour (; ). This highlights the need for simultaneous observations across multiple spatial scales to understand how collective interactions produce “mesoscale” phenomena ( in the magnetosphere) that mediate the global solar–terrestrial interaction.
Conjunctions between existing missions have revealed some of these feedbacks and mesoscale structuring relevant to magnetopause dynamics. For example, foreshock and magnetosheath transients emerge from interactions of large-scale solar wind structures with the quasi-parallel bow shock and reflected suprathermal foreshock ion populations, leading to many localised disturbances of the boundary and impacts throughout geospace (e.g., ; ; Nykyri et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020a; ). Currently an extraordinary number of spacecraft orbit Earth, meaning many opportunities for multi-mission conjunctions exist. Indeed, Figure 1B highlights how March 2024 regularly offered simultaneous observations upstream of the bow shock, near the magnetopause at different local times, and at different -shells within the magnetosphere.
Unfortunately, sparse conjunctions do not provide sufficient measurements to resolve all key processes across the “system of systems”. Furthermore, care must be taken when comparing/combining measurements across different missions/instruments. Mission concepts for distributed identical spacecraft separated over “mesoscales” have been suggested to address this (; ). These would have clear applications in building a global picture of magnetopause dynamics, revolutionising our understanding of the boundary’s role in controlling mass, momentum, and energy transfer.
2.2 Soft X-rays
Large-scale imaging of the dynamic solar–terrestrial interaction from space is an emerging direction that clearly complements in-situ spacecraft and ground-based measurements. Several upcoming missions aim to image the dayside magnetosphere in soft X-rays from solar wind charge exchange, including the joint ESA-CAS SMILE mission (; Wang and Branduardi-Raymont, 2022), and smallsats Geo-X () and LEXI (Walsh et al., 2024). A heavy solar wind ion in the magnetosheath/cusps gains an electron in a high-energy state from a neutral exospheric atom, subsequently relaxing by emitting an X-ray photon (; Robertson and Cravens, 2003). Soft X-ray emissivities are predicted to peak at the tangent to the magnetopause (Sibeck et al., 2018), potentially enabling boundary dynamics to be tracked in both space and time.
Methods to determine the location of the magnetopause from X-ray images are not trivial, typically assuming some global shape (Samsonov et al., 2022; Wang and Sun, 2022). Furthermore, under typical to moderate solar wind driving, rather low photon counts are expected. Spatiotemporal binning can help increase signal-to-noise, though bins of scales comparable to typical dayside magnetopause motion still result in very noisy images (e.g., Samsonov et al., 2022; 2024). While this may be mitigated by longer integration times and/or larger pixels, it would render boundary dynamics indeterminable.
More advanced techniques are likely required to improve scientific return. For example, data-driven density estimation techniques little used in our field may help (e.g., ; ). Instead of sharp fixed pixels, density estimation sums over smooth functions centred on each observation. This has convergence and continuity benefits over binning, and methods for data-driven scaling of bandwidths already exist (Silverman, 1986). Figure 1D shows our application to simulated data from Samsonov et al. (2024), demonstrating clear improvements.
3 Magnetosphere–ionosphere interface
Information about disturbances to the magnetopause are communicated to the auroral ionosphere along magnetic field lines by field-aligned currents (FACs), carried by precipitating magnetospheric electrons (ions) and/or upwelling ionospheric ions (electrons) for upward (downward) currents (; Sibeck, 1990). Recent high-resolution global MHD simulations, shown in Figure 1E (), suggest magnetopause surface waves’ FACs have large latitudinal extents via non-resonant coupling between the compressional and Alfvén modes, peaking at the inner edge of the magnetopause transition (typically a few degrees equatorward of the Open–Closed Boundary, OCB; ). These FACs open the possibility of remote sensing magnetopause motion at the magnetosphere–ionosphere interface. Current LEO spacecraft (e.g., Swarm, ; POES; ; DMSP; ; Redmon et al., 2017; and CASSIOPE; Yau and James, 2015) enable observations of magnetic field, electric field, precipitating particle, and/or drift velocity perturbations; all of which may be associated with magnetopause dynamics (e.g., ). However, due to orbital mechanics, single satellites in LEO provide a predominantly spatial cut and cannot capture the periodicities at a fixed point in space associated with magnetopause motion. GDC’s 6-spacecraft will enable temporal evolution of important magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere coupling processes to be captured (). In early mission phases when orbital planes at high-latitudes are closest in longitude — best for studying magnetopause-related dynamics — resolvable timescales will be limited by the spacing/time between satellites to . Mega-constellations with many satellites in the same orbital plane are required to capture the full range of magnetopause periodicities at the magnetosphere–ionosphere interface.
In recent years, commercial mega-constellations with 10’s–1000s of satellites have been launched into LEO. Figure 1E shows orbits of the three largest to date: Iridium, OneWeb, and Starlink. The AMPERE project has successfully demonstrated engineering magnetometers aboard the polar-orbiting Iridium constellation (orange) can provide FAC observations across the polar cap through spherical fits to measured perturbations (; Waters et al., 2019). This has provided great insight into the variability of Region-1 and -2 FACs (), though the spacecraft separation within each of the 6 orbital planes means only periodicities are resolvable. Larger mega-constellations might be leveraged in a similar way, enabling FACs from magnetopause dynamics to be captured. OneWeb (purple) also has polar orbits, but twice as many orbital planes as Iridium and only separation within these. Thus OneWeb might provide resolution polar maps with double the azimuthal fidelity. Starlink (green) occupy mostly inclined orbits, but a minority of orbits do cross the polar cap. The sheer number of Starlink satellites means it could still yield improved coverage/resolution to Iridium. Of course these possibilities would involve significant technical challenges and further developed processing methods, but could significantly advance our global monitoring of the dynamic solar–terrestrial interaction from space.
4 Ionosphere
4.1 Auroral imaging
Magnetopause disturbances can, through the precipitating magnetospheric particles carrying their FACs, lead to production/modulation of auroral emission in the ionosphere (e.g., ; Sibeck et al., 1999; ). Aurorae are monitored from both ground and space, providing yet further means of remote sensing magnetopause dynamics.
This is a historic era for ground-based auroral science, with unprecedented all-sky imager (ASI) coverage operating coast-to-coast across the high latitude North American landscape, as shown in Figure 2A (orange/yellow circles). The THEMIS-ASI network of 21 imagers (; ; ) has provided comprehensive panchromatic “white light” imaging since 2008, capturing qualitative images of auroral morphology from local to continent-wide scales (quantitative data can be derived by combining with meridian scanning photometers; ). Since particle species cannot be differentiated in panchromatic data, aurorae are assumed caused by precipitating electrons. At 9 THEMIS-ASI sites are the REGO red-line imagers, which observe a key oxygen auroral emission (). TREx, another continent-wide network across 6 locations (), instead features co-located monochromatic ASIs at major auroral emissions (blue-line, near-infrared, and RGB “true colour”). This enables electron flux and mean precipitation energy to be derived, yielding vital information on particle sources and their connection to the magnetosphere (; ; ). The THEMIS-ASIs are being replaced with RGB imagers to complement the SMILE mission, with the 19 new SMILE-ASIs completing by summer 2025 (). Of course, ground-based auroral imagery is only possible during clear night skies, which for dayside magnetopause signatures limits studies to winter seasons.
FIGURE 2
In addition to ground-based imagers, space-based ones such as on IMAGE (; ,), Polar (Torr et al., 1995), DMSP (Paxton et al., 2002), the upcoming SMILE () and proposed MAAX () have the benefit of observing large areas and at wavelengths (e.g., UV-band) not observable from the ground. Furthermore, UV auroral observations are possible at all times, independent of light pollution. However, space-based auroral images are less detailed, due to trade-offs between spatial coverage and integration times, as well as orbital configuration. While DMSP auroral images build up over polar crossings, meaning spatiotemporal ambiguity affects potential magnetopause signatures, both Polar and IMAGE were spinning allowing cadence images, suitable for resolving auroral impacts of long-period magnetopause waves (e.g., ). SMILE’s UVI will cover the entire auroral oval for the first time since 2005, allowing global auroral dynamics to be captured at and resolution, augmented by more detailed imagery from the ground.
Figure 2B shows simulated FACs associated with magnetopause surface waves which may lead to auroral signatures (). While auroral bright spots have been linked to the magnetopause (; ) and recently plasmapause (; ), it is not clear if surface waves’ FACs are sufficient to generate emission or simply modulate existing aurorae. Insight might be gained through comparison with field line resonances, whose similar periodic FACs do produce aurorae (Samson et al., 1996; ; ).
4.2 Radar
Closure of magnetopause disturbances’ FACs through ionospheric Pedersen currents are associated with electric field oscillations and plasma drifts, resulting in so-called Travelling Convection Vortices (TCVs, ; ) which may be detected by radar observations (e.g., Walsh et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2020).
SuperDARN (e.g., Ruohoniemi et al., 1989; Ruohoniemi and Greenwald, 1996; ; Nishitani et al., 2019, etc.) consists of ground-based high-frequency coherent scatter radars which measure line-of-sight Doppler shifts of ionospheric irregularities. The network has expanded over the past 2 decades/solar cycles across high- (blue/red fans in Figure 2A) and mid-latitudes, enabling coverage for typical but also disturbed geomagnetic conditions (Nishitani et al., 2019; Walach and Grocott, 2019; Walach et al., 2021). Historically, ULF waves have been studied at individual radars, where comparing measurements across multiple beams (see Figure 2C for simulated single-beam observations) can track 2-D wave propagation providing insights into drivers (; ). Because a full scan of the SuperDARN field-of-view took though, signatures due to faster magnetopause dynamics (e.g., KH-waves) could not be fully captured over large-scales. However, exciting upgrades to digital radar systems (e.g., ) are enabling imaging at resolution. As these improvements roll out, the overlapping fields-of-view might allow unprecedented large-scale observations of TCVs due magnetopause dynamics through high-order spherical fits to velocity measurements (Ruohoniemi et al., 1989).
In addition to coherent scatter radars, Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR, cyan stars in Figure 2A), e.g., EISCAT (Rietveld et al., 2019; Stamm et al., 2021), PFISR (Nicolla and Heinselman, 2007), and RISR, (), is another valuable tool for remote sensing magnetopause dynamics from the ionosphere. and Wang et al. (2020b) used ISR measurements showing ULF waves with periods from significantly modulate the ionospheric electron density at a range of altitudes, ultimately affecting ionospheric conductance. While ISR’s spatial coverage is limited for resolving the spatial scales and propagation of magnetopause dynamics, its ability to offer insights into altitude profiles of multiple ionospheric parameters becomes invaluable. These are aspects poorly explored both in magnetopause dynamical theory/simulations and observations at present.
4.3 Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)
Ionospheric total electron content (TEC), the columnar number density, is most widely obtained using remote-sensing techniques between GNSS satellites and ground-receivers (magenta dots in Figure 2A). Observed TEC fluctuations with periods have been linked to ULF waves in the polar cap (e.g., Watson et al., 2016), auroral zone (e.g., Pilipenko et al., 2014), and mid-/low-latitude regions (e.g., Yizengaw et al., 2018). These have amplitudes as large as (Watson et al., 2015). Pilipenko et al. (2014) explored several possible mechanisms of higher latitude ULF wave driven TEC fluctuations, two of which may be related to magnetopause surface waves and have been invoked in other studies. These are wave-modulated precipitation of energetic electrons affecting ionospheric conductivities (; Wang et al., 2020b), and periodic vertical plasma flows due to waves’ FACs (; ). TEC observations are complicated by satellite orbits and line-of-sight, with standard conversions from “slant” to “vertical” TEC (e.g., ) assuming homogeneity over — invalid for even large-scale surface waves (). Further modelling to better understand the physical processes behind TEC fluctuations and any observational biases are needed for GNSS to become a valuable remote-sensing tool for magnetopause dynamics.
5 Ground magnetic field
The magnetic field at Earth’s surface includes contributions from magnetosphere–ionosphere currents. Global networks of ground-based magnetometers of varying spatial separations (, green triangles in Figure 2A) have been some of the earliest and most widely used tools for understanding how magnetopause disturbances lead to FACs/waves (; Sibeck, 1990; ; Motoba et al., 2007), ultimately impacting the global magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere system (e.g., Shi et al., 2022). While unable to detect phenomena < 100 km (), they have a few important advantages over other instruments. They can operate continuously without concern for sunlight, cloud cover, and ionospheric backscatter. Closely spaced magnetometers can also resolve important mesoscales from the ground (Engebretson and Zesta, 2017). Furthermore, ground magnetometers do not move in the geocentric frame, thus the interpretation of their data is less complicated than satellites (e.g., ).
Studies of high-latitude ULF waves have been described as a “zone of confusion” with structuring whose relation out to the magnetosphere is ambiguous (Pilipenko et al., 2015; 2018; see also Figure 2D). Unambiguously linking wave power enhancements with magnetopause surface waves (e.g., ), or other wave activity (e.g., ; ), may require closely spaced networks of magnetometers to identify the polarization changes and wave power variations predicted by simulations (). 2D networks in both hemispheres spanning the cusp and auroral zones would further help discriminate wave modes; e.g., enabling natural experiments for isolating surface wave signatures from telluric currents (Weygand et al., 2023), variations in ionospheric conductance (e.g., ), and asymmetries in upstream driving conditions (e.g., Oliveira et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020; ; Villante et al., 2022).
Finally, magnetotelluric survey networks (e.g., USArray’s EarthScope sites; Schultz, 2010) consist of small arrays taking simultaneous geoelectric and geomagnetic field measurements temporarily (typically weeks, but variable), subsequently moving locations. They have a few unique capabilities relevant for surface wave diagnostics (; Shi et al., 2022). They are typically deployed in more spatially dense networks than typical magnetometer networks thus capture finer-scale features. They provide information about ground conductivity, which can be used to discriminate magnetosphere–ionosphere currents from telluric currents. They also yield additional geoelectric field measurements, enabling the waves’ hazard to power systems to be considered. However, their spatial coverage at any given time is much more limited and site locations may not always be optimal for studying the magnetopause’s effects on the ground.
6 Discussion
This is an exciting time for studying magnetopause dynamics, with many new/emerging observational capabilities in both in-situ and remote sensing measurements. Each of these enables us to probe the physical processes occurring at the boundary and their impacts upon geospace. While each observational method has its own unique benefits and drawbacks, bringing them together simultaneously will start to provide a holistic view of the magnetopause’s controlling role in mediating the solar–terrestrial interaction — from local physics, through to emergent mesoscale features, and ultimately the collective global response/impact. It is crucial this unprecedented observational coverage be maintained through sustained funding for extended mission/instrumentation operations.
Along with this unprecedented diversity and coverage of measurements, data processing methods will become more important than ever. Inversion techniques applied to multi-point measurements offer unique opportunities to resolve the temporal evolution and spatial structure of different wave modes, which may otherwise be convolved in original datasets complicating their physical interpretation (). For example, distributed 2D networks of ground-based magnetometers have long been used to obtain magnetospheric field-aligned, ionospheric Pedersen and Hall, and now even telluric currents via the Spherical Elementary Current System technique (e.g., Shi et al., 2022; Weygand et al., 2023). Similar methods are now also being applied to SuperDARN observations (e.g., ). These approaches may further be boosted through machine learning capabilities (; Nguyen et al., 2022; ), allowing more sophisticated data analysis across “big data” for the identification of signals related to magnetopause surface waves and dynamics (e.g., ; Murphy et al., 2020; ), especially in nonlinear and nonstationary contexts (Piersanti et al., 2018; Stallone et al., 2020). Finally, data mining and assimilation (Tsyganenko and Sitnov, 2007; ; ) into maturing “system of systems” models (e.g., Zhang et al., 2019; Sorathia et al., 2020; 2023; ) can aid the interpretation of this unprecedented, but still scattered, data collection enabling the global context to be inferred.
The techniques and physical insights gained from studying Earth’s magnetopause might also translate to different space plasma environments where fewer observational methods are possible, such as the other planetary magnetopauses (e.g., ; ; ) or solar coronal structures like loops (Nakariakov et al., 2016). Here similar dynamical processes are thought to occur but over vastly different scales, morphologies, and/or plasma conditions.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. XS: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. M-TW: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. MH: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. DG: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. SD: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. FS: Conceptualization, Writing–review and editing. KN: Funding acquisition, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, through ISSI International Team project #546 “Magnetohydrodynamic Surface Waves at Earth’s Magnetosphere (and Beyond).” MA was supported by UKRI (STFC/EPSRC) Stephen Hawking Fellowship EP/T01735X/1 and UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship MR/X034704/1. XS was supported by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) awards 80NSSC21K1677 and 80NSSC21K1683, National Science Foundation (NSF) awards AGS-1935110, AGS-2025570, and AGS-2307205. M-TW was supported by UKRI (STFC) Ernest Rutherford Fellowship ST/X003663/1. MH was supported by NASA awards 80NSSC21K1683 and 80NSSC23K0903, and NSF awards AGS-2307204 and AGS-2027210. SD was supported by NASA award 80NSSC21K0459. FS was supported by NASA award 80NSSC21K0448.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the 3DView online tool () used to create Figure 1B. We acknowledge the pyDARN package (Shi et al., 2022) used to create Figure 2A. For the purpose of open access, the author(s) has applied a Creative Commons attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AkbariH.RowlandD.ColemanA.BuynovskiyA.ThayerJ. (2024). Gradient calculation techniques for multi-point ionosphere/thermosphere measurements from GDC. Front. Astron. Space Sci.11, 1231840. 10.3389/fspas.2024.1231840
2
AlzateN.Di MatteoS.MorganH.SeatonD. B.MirallesM. P.BalmacedaL.et al (2023). Data mining for science of the sun-earth connection as a single system. Front. Astronomy Space Sci.10, 1151785. 10.3389/fspas.2023.1151785
3
AndersonB. J.EngebretsonM. J.ZanettiL. J. (1989). Distortion effects in spacecraft observations of MHD toroidal standing waves: theory and observations. J. Geophys. Res.94, 13425–13445. 10.1029/JA094iA10p13425
4
AndersonB. J.TakahashiK.TothB. A. (2000). Sensing global Birkeland currents with iridium® engineering magnetometer data. Geophys. Res. Lett.27, 4045–4048. 10.1029/2000GL000094
5
ArakiT. (1994). A Physical model of the geomagnetic sudden commencement. Geophys. Monogr. Ser.81, 183–200. 10.1029/GM081p0183
6
ArakiT.NaganoH. (1988). Geomagnetic response to sudden expansions of the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.93, 3983–3988. 10.1029/JA093iA05p03983
7
ArcherM. O.HartingerM. D.PlaschkeF.SouthwoodD. J.RastaetterL. (2021). Magnetopause ripples going against the flow form azimuthally stationary surface waves. Nat. Commun.12, 5697. 10.1038/s41467-021-25923-7
8
ArcherM. O.HartingerM. D.RastaetterL.SouthwoodD. J.HeynsM.EggingtonJ. W. B.et al (2023). Auroral, ionospheric and ground magnetic signatures of magnetopause surface modes. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.128, e2022JA031081. 10.1029/2022JA031081
9
ArcherM. O.HartingerM. D.WalshB. M.AngelopoulosV. (2017). Magnetospheric and solar wind dependences of coupled fast-mode resonances outside the plasmasphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.122, 212–226. 10.1002/2016JA023428
10
ArcherM. O.HartingerM. D.WalshB. M.PlaschkeF.AngelopoulosV. (2015). Frequency variability of standing alfvén waves excited by fast mode resonances in the outer magnetosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett.42, 10150–10159. 10.1002/2015GL066683
11
ArcherM. O.HietalaH.HartingerM. D.PlaschkeF.AngelopoulosV. (2019). Direct observations of a surface eigenmode of the dayside magnetopause. Nat. Commun.10, 615. 10.1038/s41467-018-08134-5
12
ArcherM. O.HorburyT. S.EastwoodJ. P. (2012). Magnetosheath pressure pulses: generation downstream of the bow shock from solar wind discontinuities. J. Geophys. Res. Spoace Phys.117, A05228. 10.1029/2011JA017468
13
ArcherM. O.HorburyT. S.EastwoodJ. P.WeygandJ. M.YeomanT. K. (2013). Magnetospheric response to magnetosheath pressure pulses: a low pass filter effect. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.118, 5454–5466. 10.1002/jgra.50519
14
ArcherM. O.PilipenkoV. A.LiB.SorathiaK.NakariakovV. M.ElsdenT.et al (2024). Magnetopause MHD surface wave theory: progress & challenges. Front. Astron. Space Sci.11. In press. 10.3389/fspas.2024.1407172
15
ArcherM. O.PlaschkeF. (2015). What frequencies of standing surface waves can the subsolar magnetopause support?J. Geophys Res.120, 3632–3646. 10.1002/2014JA020545
16
AxfordW. I. (1964). Viscous interaction between the solar wind and the earth’s magnetosphere. Planet. Space Sci12, 45–53. 10.1016/0032-0633(64)90067-4
17
BelakhovskyV.PilipenkoV.MurrD.FedorovE.KozlovskyA. (2016). Modulation of the ionosphere by pc5 waves observed simultaneously by gps/tec and eiscat. Earth, Planets Space68, 102–113. 10.1186/s40623-016-0480-7
18
BoardsenS. A.SundbergT.SlavinJ. A.AndersonB. J.orthH.SolomonS. C.et al (2010). Observations of Kelvin-Helmholtz waves along the dusk-side boundary of Mercury’s magnetosphere during MESSENGER’s third flyby. Gephys. Res. Lett.37, L12101. 10.1029/2010GL043606
19
BørveS.SatoH.PécseliH. L.TrulsenJ. K. (2011). Minute-scale period oscillations of the magnetosphere. Ann. Geophys.29, 663–671. 10.5194/angeo-29-663-2011
20
Branduardi-RaymontG.WangC. (2022). The SMILE mission. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 1–22. 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_39-1
21
BristowW. A.SibeckD. G.JacqueyC.GreenwaldR. A.SofkoG. J.MukaiT.et al (1995). Observations of convection vortices in the afternoon sector using the SuperDARN HF radars. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.100, 19743–19756. 10.1029/95JA01301
22
BuchertS. C.FujiiR.GlassmeierK.-H. (1999). Ionospheric conductivity modulation in ULF pulsations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.104, 10119–10133. 10.1029/1998JA900180
23
CamporealeE. (2019). The challenge of machine learning in space weather: nowcasting and forecasting. Space weather.17, 1166–1207. 10.1029/2018SW002061
24
CarterJ. A.DunlopM.ForsythC.OksavikK.DonovonE.KavanaghA.et al (2024). Ground-based and additional science support for SMILE. Earth Planet. Phys.8, 275–298. 10.26464/epp2023055
25
ChandrasekharS. (1961). Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26
ChenL.HasegawaA. (1974). A theory of long-period magnetic pulsations: 2. impulse excitation of surface eigenmode. J. Geophys. Res.79, 1033–1037. 10.1029/JA079i007p01033
27
ChishamG.LesterM.MilanS. E.FreemanM. P.BristowW. a.Grocotta.et al (2007). A decade of the super dual auroral radar network (SuperDARN): scientific achievements, new techniques and future directions. Surv. Geophys.28, 33–109. 10.1007/s10712-007-9017-8
28
CiconeA.LiuL.ZhouH. (2016). Adaptive local iterative filtering for signal decomposition and instantaneous frequency analysis. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Analysis41, 384–411. 10.1016/j.acha.2016.03.001
29
ConstantinescuO. D.GlassmeierK.-H.PlaschkeF.AusterU.AngelopoulosV.BaumjohannW.et al (2009). THEMIS observations of duskside compressional Pc5 waves. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.114, A00C25. 10.1029/2008JA013519
30
CravenJ. D.FrankL. A.RussellC. T.SmithE. J.LeppingR. P. (1986). Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling (Tokyo, Japan: terra Sci.), chap. Global auroral responses to magnetospheric compressions by shocks in the solar wind, 367–380.
31
CravensT. E.RobertsonI. P.SnowdenS. L. (2001). Temporal variations of geocoronal and heliospheric X-ray emission associated with the solar wind interaction with neutrals. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.106, 24883–24892. 10.1029/2000JA000461
32
Di MatteoS.SivadasN. (2022). Solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling: understand uncertainties in upstream conditions. Front. Astronomy Space Sci.9, 333. 10.3389/fspas.2022.1060072
33
Di MatteoS.ViallN. M.KepkoL. (2021). Power spectral density background estimate and signal detection via the multitaper method. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.126, e28748. 10.1029/2020ja028748
34
Di MatteoS.VillanteU.ViallN.KepkoL.WallaceS. (2022). On differentiating multiple types of ULF magnetospheric waves in response to solar wind periodic density structures. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.127, e2021JA030144. 10.1029/2021ja030144
35
DonovanE.LiuW.LiangJ.SpanswickE.VoronkovI.ConnorsM.et al (2008). Simultaneous THEMIS in situ and auroral observations of a small substorm, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L17S18. 10.1029/2008GL033794
36
DonovanE.MendeS.JackelB.FreyH.SyrjäsuoM.VoronkovI.et al (2006). The THEMIS all-sky imaging array—system design and initial results from the prototype imager. J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys.68, 1472–1487. 10.1016/j.jastp.2005.03.027
37
DungeyJ. W. (1961). Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett.6, 47–48. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47
38
EngebretsonM.ZestaE. (Editors) (2017). Ground magnetometer array planning: report of a workshop. Minneapolis, USA: Augsburg College. http://space.augsburg.edu/GroundMagnetometerWorkshopReport.pdf
39
ElkingtonS. R. (2006). “A review of ULF interactions with radiation belt electrons,”. Editors TakahashiK.ChiP. J.DentonR. E.LysakR. L. (John Wiley & Sons), 169.Magnetospheric ULF waves: synthesis and new directions
40
ElphicR. C. (1988). Multipoint observations of the magnetopause: results from ISEE and AMPTE. Adv. Space Res.8, 223–238. 10.1016/0273-1177(88)90135-4
41
EscoubetC. P.HwangK.-J.Toledo-RedondoS.TurcL.HaalandS. E.AunaiN.et al (2020). Cluster and MMS simultaneous observations of magnetosheath high speed jets and their impact on the magnetopause. Front. Astron. Space Sci.6, 78. 10.3389/fspas.2019.00078
42
EvansD. S.GreerM. S. (2000) “Polar orbiting environmental satellite space environment monitor—2: instrument descriptions and archive data documentation,”. Boulder, CO, USA: NOAA.
43
EzoeY.FunaseR.NagataH.MiyoshiY.KasaharaS.NakajimaH.et al (2020). “GEO-X (GEOspace x-ray imager),”. Space telescopes and instrumentation 2020: ultraviolet to gamma ray. Editors den HerderJ.-W. A.NikzadS.NakazawaK. (SPIE: International Society for Optics and Photonics), 11444. 10.1117/12.25607801144428
44
FaganelloM.CalifanoF. (2017). Magnetized Kelvin–Helmholtz instability: theory and simulations in the earth’s magnetosphere context. J. Plasma Phys.83, 535830601. 10.1017/S0022377817000770
45
FenrichF. R.GilliesD. M.DonovanE.KnudsenD. (2019). Flow velocity and field-aligned current associated with field line resonance: SuperDARN measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.124, 4889–4904. 10.1029/2019JA026529
46
FenrichF. R.SamsonJ. C.SofkoG.GreenwaldR. A. (1995). ULF high- and low-m field line resonances observed with the super dual auroral radar network. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.100, 21535–21547. 10.1029/95JA02024
47
FranciaP.LepidiS.VillanteU.Di GiuseppeP.LazarusA. J. (1999). Geomagnetic response at low latitude to continuous solar wind pressure variations during northward interplanetary magnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.104, 19923–19930. 10.1029/1999JA900229
48
FreemanM. P.FreemanN. C.FarrugiaC. J. (1995). A linear perturbation analysis of magnetopause motion in the Newton-Busemann limit. Ann. Geophys.13, 907–918. 10.1007/s00585-995-0907-0
49
Friis-ChristensenE.LührH.KnudsenD.HaagmansR. (2008). Swarm – an earth observation mission investigating geospace. Adv.Space Res.41, 210–216. 10.1016/j.asr.2006.10.008
50
Friis-ChristensenE.McHenryM. A.ClauerC. R.VennerstrømS. (1988). Ionospheric traveling convection vortices observed near the polar cleft: a triggered response to sudden changes in the solar wind. Geophys. Res. Lett.15, 253–256. 10.1029/GL015i003p00253
51
GabrielseC.NishimuraT.ChenM.HechtJ. H.KaepplerS. R.GilliesD. M.et al (2021). Estimating precipitating energy flux, average energy, and Hall auroral conductance from THEMIS all-sky-imagers with focus on mesoscales. Front. Phys.9, 744298. 10.3389/fphy.2021.744298
52
GénotV.BeigbederL.PopescuD.DufourgN.GangloffM.BouchemitM.et al (2018). Science data visualization in planetary and heliospheric contexts with 3DView. Planet. Space Sci.150, 111–130. 10.1016/j.pss.2017.07.007
53
GilliesD. M.DonovanE.HamptonD.LiangJ.ConnorsM.NishimuraY.et al (2019). First observations from the TREx spectrograph: the optical spectrum of STEVE and the picket fence phenomena. Geophys. Res. Lett.46, 7207–7213. 10.1029/2019GL083272
54
GilliesD. M.KnudsenK.RankinR.MilanS.DonovanE. (2018). A statistical survey of the 630.0-nm optical signature of periodic auroral arcs resulting from magnetospheric field line resonances. Geophys. Res. Lett.45, 4648–4655. 10.1029/2018GL077491
55
GilliesD. M.LiangJ.Gallardo-LacourtB.DonovanE. (2023). New insight into the transition from a SAR arc to STEVE. Geophys. Res. Lett.50, e2022GL101205. 10.1029/2022GL101205
56
GilliesR. G.van EykenA.SpanswickE.NicollsM.KellyJ.GreffenM.et al (2016). First observations from the RISR-C incoherent scatter radar. Radio Sci.51, 1645–1659. 10.1002/2016RS006062
57
GlassmeierK.-H. (1992). Traveling magnetospheric convection twin-vortices: observations and theory. Ann. Geophys.10.
58
GombosiT. I.ChenY.GlocerA.HuangZ.JiaX.LiemohnM. W.et al (2021). What sustained multi-disciplinary research can achieve: the space weather modeling framework. J. Space Weather Space Clim.11, 42. 10.1051/swsc/2021020
59
GrimmichN.PlaschkeF.ArcherM. O.HeynerD.MiethJ. Z. D.NakamuraR.et al (2023). Study of extreme magnetopause distortions under varying solar wind conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.128, e2023JA031603. 10.1029/2023JA031603
60
HalfordA.LiemohnM.RidleyA.WellingD.ImmelT.ConnorH.et al (2024) “Magnetospheric Auroral Asymmetry eXplorer: observing the auroral to uncover how energy flows in space-A Phase A SMEX Mission concept,”. Abstract No. EGU24-2058. Göttingen, Germany: Copernicus Meetings.
61
HartingerM. D.ShiX.LucasG. M.MurphyB. S.KelbertA.BakerJ. B. H.et al (2020). Simultaneous observations of geoelectric and geomagnetic fields produced by magnetospheric ULF waves. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2020GL089441. 10.1029/2020GL089441
62
HartingerM. D.XuZ.ClauerC. R.YuY.WeimerD. R.KimH.et al (2017). Associating ground magnetometer observations with current or voltage generators. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.122, 7130–7141. 10.1002/2017JA024140
63
HasegawaH.FujimotoM.PhanT.-D.RèmeH.BaloghA.DunlopM. W.et al (2004). Transport of solar wind into Earth’s magnetosphere through rolled-up Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices. Nature430, 755–758. 10.1038/nature02799
64
HeF.GuoR.-L.DunnW. R.YaoZ.-H.ZhangH.-S.HaoY.-X.et al (2020). Plasmapause surface wave oscillates the magnetosphere and diffuse aurora. Nat. Commun.11, 1668. 10.1038/s41467-020-15506-3
65
HillT. W.RassbachM. E. (1975). Interplanetary magnetic field direction and the configuration of the day side magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res.80, 1–6. 10.1029/JA080i001p00001
66
HoraitesK.RintamäkiE.ZaitsevI.TurcL.GrandinM.CozzaniG.et al (2023). Magnetospheric response to a pressure pulse in a three‐dimensional hybrid‐vlasov simulation. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.128, e2023JA031374. 10.1029/2023JA031374
67
HorvathI.LovellB. C. (2021). Subauroral flow channel structures and auroral undulations triggered by kelvin-helmholtz waves. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.126, e2021JA029144. 10.1029/2021JA029144
68
HughesW. J.SouthwoodD. J. (1976). The screening of micropulsation signals by the atmosphere and ionosphere. J. Geophys. Res.81, 3234–3240. 10.1029/JA081i019p03234
69
JamesM. K.YeomanT. K.MagerP. N.KlimushkinD. Y. (2013). The spatio-temporal characteristics of ULF waves driven by substorm injected particles. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.118, 1737–1749. 10.1002/jgra.50131
70
KavosiS.RaederJ. (2015). Ubiquity of kelvin–helmholtz waves at earth’s magnetopause. Nat. Commun.6, 7019. 10.1038/ncomms8019
71
KepkoL. (2018). “Magnetospheric constellation: leveraging space 2.0 for big science,” in Igarss 2018 - 2018 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, 285–288. 10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8519475
72
KepkoL.GabrielseC.GkioulidouM.NykyriK.SibeckD.TurnerD.et al (2023). Magnetospheric constellation (MagCon). Bull. AAS55. 10.3847/25c2cfeb.0e470159Available at: https://baas.aas.org/pub/2023n3i200.
73
KilcommonsL. M.RedmonR. J.KnippD. J. (2017). A new DMSP magnetometer and auroral boundary data set and estimates of field-aligned currents in dynamic auroral boundary coordinates. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.122, 9068–9079. 10.1002/2016JA023342
74
KleinK. G.SpenceH.AlexandrovaO.ArgallM.ArzamasskiyL.BookbinderJ.et al (2023). Helioswarm: a multipoint, multiscale mission to characterize turbulence. Space Sci. Rev.219, 74. 10.1007/s11214-023-01019-0
75
KozyrevaO.PilipenkoV.LorentzenD.BaddeleyL.HartingerM. (2019). Transient oscillations near the dayside open-closed boundary: evidence of magnetopause surface mode?J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.124, 9058–9074. 10.1029/2018JA025684
76
KozyrevaO. V.PilipenkoV. A.BlandE. C.BaddeleyL. J.ZakharovV. I. (2020). Periodic modulation of the upper ionosphere by ULF waves as observed simultaneously by superdarn radars and gps/tec technique. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.125, e2020JA028032. 10.1029/2020JA028032
77
LiangJ.DonovanE.JackelB.SpanswickE.GilliesM. (2016). On the 630 nm red-line pulsating aurora: red-line Emission Geospace Observatory observations and model simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.121, 7988–8012. 10.1002/2016JA022901
78
LiangJ.GilliesD.DonovanE.ParryH.MannI.ConnorsM.et al (2022). On the green isolated proton auroras during Canada thanksgiving geomagnetic storm. Front. Astron. Space Sci.9, 1040092. 10.3389/fspas.2022.1040092
79
LiangJ.GilliesD. M.SpanswickE.DonovanE. F. (2024). Converting TREx-RGB green-channel data to 557.7 nm auroral intensity: methodology and initial results. Earth Planet. Phys.8, 258–274. 10.26464/epp2023063
80
LinD.WangC.LiW.TangB.GuoX.PengZ. (2014). Properties of Kelvin-Helmholtz waves at the magnetopause under northward interplanetary magnetic field: statistical study. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.119, 7485–7494. 10.1002/2014JA020379
81
LiouK.TakahashiK.NewellP. T.YumotoK. (2008). Polar ultraviolet imager observations of solar wind-driven ULF auroral pulsations. Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L16101. 10.1029/2008GL034953
82
LundinR.EvansD. S. (1985). Boundary layer plasmas as a source for high-latitude, early afternoon, auroral arcs. Planet. Space Sci.33, 1389–1406. 10.1016/0032-0633(85)90115-1
83
LyatskyW. B.SibeckD. G. (1997). Surface waves on the low-latitude boundary layer inner edge and travelling convection vortices. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.102, 17643–17647. 10.1029/97JA00323
84
MaX.DelamereP.OttoA.BurkholderB. (2017). Plasma transport driven by the three-dimensional Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.122, 10382–10395. 10.1002/2017JA024394
85
MaX.OttoA.DelamereP. A. (2014). Interaction of magnetic reconnection and Kelvin-Helmholtz modes for large magnetic shear: 1. Kelvin-Helmholtz trigger. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.119, 781–797doi. 10.1002/2013JA019224
86
MassonA.NykyriK. (2018). Kelvin-Helmholtz instability: lessons learned and ways forward. Space Sci. Rev.214, 71. 10.1007/s11214-018-0505-6
87
MastersA.AchilleosN.BertucciC.DoughertyM. K.KananiS. J.ArridgeC. S.et al (2009). Surface waves on Saturn’s dawn flank magnetopause driven by the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. Planet. Space Sci.57, 1769–1778. 10.1016/j.pss.2009.02.010
88
MatlsevY. P.LyatskyW. B. (1975). Field-aligned currents and erosion of the dayside magnetosphere. Planet. Space Sci.23, 1257–1260. 10.1016/0032-0633(75)90149-X
89
McWilliamsK. A.DetwillerM.KotykK.KriegerK.RohelR.BillettD. D.et al (2023). Borealis: an advanced digital hardware and software design for superdarn radar systems. Radio Sci.58, e2022RS007591. 10.1029/2022RS007591
90
MejnertsenL.EastwoodJ. P.HietalaH.SchwartzS. J.ChittendenJ. P. (2017). Global MHD simulations of the earth’s bow shock shape and motion under variable solar wind conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.123, 259–271. 10.1002/2017JA024690
91
MendeS. B.HarrisS. E.FreyH. U.AngelopoulosV.RussellC. T.DonovanE.et al (2008). The THEMIS array of ground-based observatories for the study of auroral substorms, Space Sci. Rev., 141, 357–387. 10.1007/s11214-008-9380-x
92
MendeS. B.HeetderksH.FreyH. U.LamptonM.GellerS. P.AbiadR.et al (2000a). Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft. 2. Wideband FUV imaging. Space Sci. Rev.91, 271–285. 10.1023/A:1005227915363
93
MendeS. B.HeetderksH.FreyH. U.LamptonM.GellerS. P.HabrakenS.et al (2000b). Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft. 1. System design. Space Sci. Rev.91, 243–270. 10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_8
94
MendeS. B.HeetderksH.FreyH. U.StockJ. M.LamptonM.GellerS. P.et al (2000c). “Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft. 3. Spectral imaging of lyman- and OI 135.6 nm,” in The IMAGE mission. Editor BurchJ. L. (chap: Springer Netherlands), 287–318. 10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_103
95
MerkinV. G.KondrashovD.GhilM.AndersonB. J. (2016). Data assimilation of low-altitude magnetic perturbations into a global magnetosphere model. Space weather.14, 165–184. 10.1002/2015SW001330
96
MilanS. E.ClausenL. B. N.CoxonJ. C.CarterJ. A.WalachM.-T.LaundalK.et al (2017). Overview of solar wind–magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmosphere coupling and the generation of magnetospheric currents. Space Sci. Rev.206, 547–573. 10.1007/s11214-017-0333-0
97
MilanS. E.SatoN.EjiriM.MoenJ. (2001). Auroral forms and the field-aligned current structure associated with field line resonances. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.106, 25825–25833. 10.1029/2001JA900077
98
MontgomeryJ.EbertR. W.AllegriniF.BagenalF.BoltonS. J.DiBraccioG. A.et al (2023). Investigating the occurrence of Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities at Jupiter’s dawn magnetopause. Geophys. Res. Lett.50, e2023GL102921. 10.1029/2023GL102921
99
MotobaT.FujitaS.KikuchiT.TanakaT. (2007). Solar wind dynamic pressure forced oscillation of the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling system: a numerical simulation of directly pressure-forced geomagnetic pulsations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.112, A11204. 10.1029/2006JA012193
100
MurphyK. R.InglisA. R.SibeckD. G.WattC. E. J.RaeI. J. (2020). Inner magnetospheric ULF waves: the occurrence and distribution of broadband and discrete wave activity. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.125, e27887. 10.1029/2020JA027887
101
NakariakovV. M.PilipenkoV.HeiligB.JelínekP.KarlickýM.KlimushkinD. Y.et al (2016). Magnetohydrodynamic oscillations in the solar corona and Earth’s magnetosphere: towards consolidated understanding. Space Sci. Rev.200, 75–203. 10.1007/s11214-015-0233-0
102
NguyenG.AunaiN.de WelleB. M.JeandetA.LavraudB.DF. (2022). Massive multi-mission statistical study and analytical modeling of the earth’s magnetopause: 1. a gradient boosting based automatic detection of near-earth regions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.127, e2021JA029773. 10.1029/2021JA029773
103
NicollaM. J.HeinselmanC. J. (2007). Three-dimensional measurements of traveling ionospheric disturbances with the poker flat incoherent scatter radar. Geophys. Res. Lett.34, L21104. 10.1029/2007GL031506
104
NishitaniN.RuohoniemiJ. M.LesterM.BakerJ. B. H.KoustovA. V.ShepherdS. G.et al (2019). Review of the accomplishments of mid-latitude super dual auroral radar network (superdarn) hf radars. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.6, 27. 10.1186/s40645-019-0270-5
105
NykyriK.BegtsonM.AngelopoulosV.NishimuraY.WingS. (2019). Can enhanced flux loading by high-speed jets lead to a substorm? multipoint detection of the christmas day substorm onset at 08:17 UT, 2015. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.124, 4314–4340. 10.1029/2018JA026357
106
NykyriK.JohnsonJ.KronbergE.TurnerD.WingS.CohenI.et al (2021). Magnetospheric Multiscale observations of the source region of energetic electron microinjections along the duskside, high-latitude magnetopause boundary layer. Geophys. Res. Lett.48, e2021GL092466. 10.1029/2021GL092466
107
OliveiraD. M.HartingerM. D.XuZ.ZestaE.PilipenkoV. A.GilesB. L.et al (2020). Interplanetary shock impact angles control magnetospheric ULF wave activity: wave amplitude, frequency, and power spectra. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e90857. 10.1029/2020GL090857
108
PaschmannG.DalyP. W. (1998) “Analysis methods for multi-spacecraft data,” in ISSI scientific reports. Bern, Switzerland: International Space Science Institute.
109
PaschmannG.HaalandS.SonnerupB. U. O.HasegawaH.GeorgescuE.KleckerB.et al (2005). Characteristics of the near-tail dawn magnetopause and boundary layer. Ann. Geophys.23, 1481–1497. 10.5194/angeo-23-1481-2005
110
PaxtonL. J.MorrisonD.ZhangY.KilH.WolvenB.OgorzalekB. S.et al (2002). Validation of remote sensing products produced by the special sensor ultraviolet scanning imager (ssusi): a far uv-imaging spectrograph on dmsp f-16. Optical spectroscopic techniques, remote sensing, and instrumentation for atmospheric and space research IV (SPIE)4485, 338–348.
111
PiersantiM.MaterassiM.CiconeA.SpogliL.ZhouH.EzquerR. G. (2018). Adaptive local iterative filtering: a promising technique for the analysis of nonstationary signals. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.123, 1031–1046. 10.1002/2017JA024153
112
PilipenkoV.BelakhovskyV.EngebretsonM. J.KozlovskyA.YeomanT. (2015). Are dayside long-period pulsations related to the cusp?Ann. Geophys.33, 395–404. 10.5194/angeo-33-395-2015
113
PilipenkoV.BelakhovskyV.MurrD.FedorovE.EngebretsonM. (2014). Modulation of total electron content by ULF Pc5 waves. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.119, 4358–4369. 10.1002/2013ja019594
114
PilipenkoV. A.KozyrevaO. V.A.LorentzenD.BaddeleyL. J. (2018). The correspondence between dayside long-period geomagnetic pulsations and the open-closed field line boundary. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys.170, 64–74. 10.1016/j.jastp.2018.02.012
115
PlaschkeF.AngelopoulosV.GlassmeierK.-H. (2013). Magnetopause surface waves: THEMIS observations compared to MHD theory. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.118, 1483–1499. 10.1002/jgra.50147
116
PlaschkeF.GlassmeierK. H. (2011). Properties of standing Kruskal-Schwarzschild-modes at the magnetopause. Ann. Geophys.29, 1793–1807. 10.5194/angeo-29-1793-2011
117
PlaschkeF.GlassmeierK.-H.AusterH. U.AngelopoulosV.ConstantinescuO. D.FornaçonK.-H.et al (2009). Statistical study of the magnetopause motion: first results from THEMIS. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.114, A00C10. 10.1029/2008JA013423
118
PotemraT. A.LührH.ZanettiL. J.TakahashiK.ErlandsonR. E.MarklundG. T.et al (1989). Multisatellite and ground-based observations of transient ULF waves. J. Geophys. Res.94, 2543–2554. 10.1029/JA094iA03p02543
119
RedmonR. J.DenigW. F.KilcommonsL. M.KnippD. J. (2017). New DMSP database of precipitating auroral electrons and ions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.122, 9056–9067. 10.1002/2016JA023339
120
RetinòA.KhotyaintsevY.Le ContelO.MarcucciM. F.PlaschkeF.VaivadsA.et al (2022). Particle energization in space plasmas: towards a multi-point, multi-scale plasma observatory. Exp. Astron.54, 427–471. 10.1007/s10686-021-09797-7
121
RietveldM. T.SeniorA.MarkkanenJ.WestmanA. (2019). New capabilities of the upgraded EISCAT high-power HF facility. Radio Sci.51, 1533–1546. 10.1002/2016RS006093
122
RobertsonI. P.CravensT. E. (2003). X-ray emission from the terrestrial magnetosheath. Geophys. Res. Lett.30, 1439. 10.1029/2002GL016740
123
RuohoniemiJ. M.GreenwaldR. A. (1996). Statistical patterns of high-latitude convection obtained from Goose Bay HF radar observations. J. Geophys. Res.101, 21743–21763. 10.1029/96JA01584
124
RuohoniemiJ. M.GreenwaldR. A.BakerK. B.VillainJ.-P.HanuiseC.KellyJ. (1989). Mapping high-latitude plasma convection with coherent HF radars. J. Geophys. Res.94, 13463–13477. 10.1029/JA094iA10p13463
125
SamsonJ. C.CoggerL. L.PaoQ. (1996). Observations of field line resonances, auroral arcs, and auroral vortex structures. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.101, 17373–17383. 10.1029/96JA01086
126
SamsonovA.Branduardi-RaymontG.SembayS.ReadA.SibeckD.RastaetterL. (2024). Simulation of the SMILE Soft X-ray Imager response to a southward interplanetary magnetic field turning. Earth Planet. Phys.8, 39–46. 10.26464/epp2023058
127
SamsonovA.SembayS.ReadA.CarterJ. A.Branduardi-RaymontG.SibeckD.et al (2022). Finding magnetopause standoff distance using a Soft X-ray Imager: 2. methods to analyze 2-D X-ray images. J. Geophys. Res.:Space Phys.127, e2022JA030850. 10.1029/2022JA030850
128
SchultzA. (2010). Emscope: a continental scale magnetotelluric observatory and data discovery resource. Data Sci. J.8, IGY6–IGY20. 10.2481/dsj.ss_igy-009
129
ShiX.HartingerM. D.BakerJ. B. H.MurphyB. S.BedrosianP. A.KelbertA.et al (2022). Characteristics and sources of intense geoelectric fields in the United States: comparative analysis of multiple geomagnetic storms. Space weather.20, e2021SW002967. 10.1029/2021SW002967
130
ShiX.HartingerM. D.BakerJ. B. H.RuohoniemiJ. M.LinD.XuZ.et al (2020). Multipoint conjugate observations of dayside ULF waves during an extended period of radial IMF. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.125, e2020JA028364. 10.1029/2020ja028364
131
ShiX.LinD.WangW.BakerJ. B. H.WeygandJ. M.HartingerM. D.et al (2022). Geospace concussion: global reversal of ionospheric vertical plasma drift in response to a sudden commencement. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL100014. 10.1029/2022GL100014
132
ShiX.SchmidtM.MartinC. J.BillettD. D.BlandE.TholleyF. H.et al (2022). pydarn: a python software for visualizing superdarn radar data. Front. Astronomy Space Sci.9, 1022690. 10.3389/fspas.2022.1022690
133
SibeckD. G. (1990). A model for the transient magnetospheric response to sudden solar wind dynamic pressure variations. J. Geophys. Res.95, 3755–3771. 10.1029/JA095iA04p03755
134
SibeckD. G.AllenR.AryanH.BodewitsD.BrandtP.Branduardi-RaymontG.et al (2018). Imaging plasma density structures in the soft x-rays generated by solar wind charge exchange with neutrals. Space Sci. Rev.214, 79. 10.1007/s11214-018-0504-7
135
SibeckD. G.BaumjohannW.LopezR. E. (1989). Solar wind dynamic pressure variations and transient magnetospheric signatures. Geophys. Res. Lett.16, 13–16. 10.1029/GL016i001p00013
136
SibeckD. G.BorodkovaN.SchwartzS.OwenC.KesselR.KokubunS.et al (1999). Comprehensive study of the magnetospheric response to a hot flow anomaly. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.104, 4577–4593. 10.1029/1998JA900021
137
SilvermanB. W. (1986) “Density estimation for statistics and data analysis,” in Monographs on statistics and applied probability. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
138
SmitG. R. (1968). Oscillatory motion of the nose region of the magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res.73, 4990–4993. 10.1029/JA073i015p04990
139
SorathiaK. A.MerkinV. G.PanovE. V.ZhangB.LyonJ. G.GarretsonJ.et al (2020). Ballooning‐interchange instability in the near‐earth plasma sheet and auroral beads: global magnetospheric modeling at the limit of the MHD approximation: Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088227. 10.1029/2020GL088227
140
SorathiaK. A.MichaelA.MerkinV. G.OhtaniS.KeeseeA. M.SciolaA.et al (2023). Multiscale magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling during stormtime: a case study of the dawnside current wedge. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.128, e2023JA031594. 10.1029/2023JA031594
141
StalloneA.CiconeA.MaterassiM. (2020). New insights and best practices for the successful use of empirical mode decomposition, iterative filtering and derived algorithms. Sci. Rep.10, 15161. 10.1038/s41598-020-72193-2
142
StammJ.VerinenJ.UrcoJ. M.GustavssonB.ChauJ. L. (2021). Radar imaging with EISCAT 3D. Ann. Geophys.39, 119–134doi. 10.5194/angeo-39-119-2021
143
TorrM. R.TorrD. G.ZukicM.JohnsonR. B.AjelloJ.BanksP.et al (1995). A far ultraviolet imager for the international solar-terrestrial physics mission. Space Sci. Rev.71, 329–383. 10.1007/BF00751335
144
TsyganenkoN. A. (1995). Modeling the earth’s magnetospheric magnetic field confined within a realistic magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res.100, 5599–5612. 10.1029/94JA03193
145
TsyganenkoN. A.SitnovM. I. (2007). Magnetospheric configurations from a high-resolution data-based magnetic field model. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.112, A06225. 10.1029/2007JA012260
146
ViallN. M.KepkoL.SpenceH. E. (2009). Relative occurrence rates and connection of discrete frequency oscillations in the solar wind density and dayside magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.114, A01201. 10.1029/2008JA013334
147
VillanteU.RecchiutiD.Di MatteoS. (2022). The transmission of ULF waves from the solar wind to the magnetosphere: an analysis of some critical aspects. Front. Astronomy Space Sci.9, 835539. 10.3389/fspas.2022.835539
148
WalachM.-T.GrocottA. (2019). SuperDARN observations during geomagnetic storms, geomagnetically active times, and enhanced solar wind driving. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.124, 5828–5847. 10.1029/2019JA026816
149
WalachM.-T.GrocottA.MilanS. E. (2021). Average ionospheric electric field morphologies during geomagnetic storm phases. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.126, e2020JA028512. 10.1029/2020JA028512
150
WalshB. M.KuntzK. D.BuskS.CameronT.ChornayD.ChuchraA.et al (2024). The lunar environment heliophysics x-ray imager (lexi) mission. Space Sci. Rev.220, 37. 10.1007/s11214-024-01063-4
151
WalshB. M.ThomasE. G.HwangK.-J.BakerJ. B. H.RuohoniemiJ. M.BonnellJ. W. (2015). Dense plasma and kelvin-helmholtz waves at earth’s dayside magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.120, 5560–5573. 10.1002/2015JA021014
152
WangB.LiuT.NishimuraY.ZhangH.HartingerM.ShiX.et al (2020a). Global propagation of magnetospheric Pc5 ULF waves driven by foreshock transients. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.125, e2020JA028411. 10.1029/2020JA028411
153
WangB.NishimuraY.HartingerM.SivadasN.LyonsL. L.VarneyR. H.et al (2020b). Ionospheric modulation by storm time Pc5 ULF pulsations and the structure detected by pfisr-themis conjunction. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2020GL089060. 10.1029/2020GL089060
154
WangC.Branduardi-RaymontG. (2022). Progress of solar wind magnetosphere ionosphere link explorer (SMILE) mission. Chin. J. Space Sci.38, 657–661. 10.11728/cjss2018.05.657
155
WangC.SunT. R. (2022). Methods to derive the magnetopause from soft X-ray images by the SMILE mission. Geosci. Lett.9, 30. 10.1186/s40562-022-00240-z
156
WatersC. L.AndersonB. J.GreenD. L.KorthH.BarnesR. J.VanhamäkiH. (2019). Science data products for AMPERE. ISSI Sci. Rep. Ser., 141–165. 10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2_7
157
WatsonC.JayachandranP.SingerH. J.RedmonR. J.DanskinD. (2015). Large-amplitude gps tec variations associated with pc5–6 magnetic field variations observed on the ground and at geosynchronous orbit. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.120, 7798–7821. 10.1002/2015ja021517
158
WatsonC.JayachandranP. T.MacDougallJ. W. (2016). Characteristics of gps tec variations in the polar cap ionosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.121, 4748–4768. 10.1002/2015JA022275
159
WeygandJ. M.HartingerM. D.StrangewayR. J.WellingD. T.KimH.MatzkaJ.et al (2023). Interhemispheric asymmetry due to IMF by within the cusp spherical elementary currents. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.128, e2023JA031430. 10.1029/2023JA031430
160
YauA. W.JamesH. G. (2015). Cassiope enhanced polar outflow probe (e-POP) mission overview. Space Sci. Rev.189, 3–14. 10.1007/s11214-015-0135-1
161
YizengawE.ZestaE.MoldwinM. B.MagounM.TripathiN. K.SurussavadeeC.et al (2018). ULF wave-associated density irregularities and scintillation at the equator. Geophys. Res. Lett.45, 5290–5298. 10.1029/2018GL078163
162
ZhangB.SorathiaK. A.LyonJ. G.MerkinV. G.GarretsonJ. S.WiltbergerM. (2019). GAMERA: a three-dimensional finite-volume MHD solver for non-orthogonal curvilinear geometries. Astrophysical J. Suppl. Ser.244, 20. 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3a4c
Summary
Keywords
magnetopause, surface waves, MHD waves, auroral ionosphere, field-aligned currents, ground, instruments, techniques
Citation
Archer MO, Shi X, Walach M-T, Hartinger MD, Gillies DM, Di Matteo S, Staples F and Nykyri K (2024) Crucial future observations and directions for unveiling magnetopause dynamics and their geospace impacts. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 11:1430099. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1430099
Received
09 May 2024
Accepted
22 July 2024
Published
05 August 2024
Volume
11 - 2024
Edited by
Yoshizumi Miyoshi, Nagoya University, Japan
Reviewed by
Jean-Francois Ripoll, CEA DAM Île-de-France, France
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Archer, Shi, Walach, Hartinger, Gillies, Di Matteo, Staples and Nykyri.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Martin O. Archer, m.archer10@imperial.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.