- 1Heliophysics Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States
- 2Department of Physics, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, United States
- 3Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- 4Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States
- 5Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 6School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
- 7Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, MD, United States
- 8Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States
A density structure within the magnetic cloud of an interplanetary coronal mass ejection impacted Earth and caused significant perturbations in plasma boundaries. Using spacecraft data, we describe the effects of this structure on the magnetosheath plasma downstream of the bow shock. During this event, the bow shock breathing motion is evident due to changes in the upstream dynamic pressure. A magnetic enhancement forms in the inner magnetosheath and ahead of a plasma compression region. The structure exhibits characteristics of a fast magnetosonic shock wave, propagating earthward and perpendicular to the background magnetic field and further accelerating the already heated magnetosheath plasma. Following these events, a sunward motion of the magnetosheath plasma is observed. Ion distributions show that both the high-density core population and the high-energy tail of the distribution of the distribution propagate sunward, indicating that the sunward flows are caused by magnetic field line expansion in the very low
1 Introduction
The magnetosheath region at Earth and other planetary systems lies between the upstream solar wind and the downstream magnetic obstacle (e.g., the magnetosphere or the magnetic pileup boundary). The magnetosheath region contains heated and compressed solar wind plasma that has been scattered and slowed down to subsonic speeds. Solar wind heating involves a variety of microphysical processes that are largely dependent on upstream plasma and shock parameters (Krasnoselskikh et al., 2013; Burgess et al., 2016). These include the bow shock inclination angle
In addition to upstream effects, the magnetosheath plasma is driven by factors including the deflection pattern around Earth at the point of measurement and transient effects generated locally or transported from downstream, such as surface waves (Plaschke et al., 2013; Burkholder et al., 2023). The energy density of the magnetosheath plasma drives the magnetopause boundary stand-off distance, an important parameter in space physics that determines the state of the magnetosphere and the magnetosphere–solar wind coupling rate. Empirical models relate the location of the magnetopause boundary to the dynamic pressure in the solar wind using the hydrodynamic theory and assuming that flow pressure is entirely converted to thermal pressure in the magnetosheath (Chapman and Ferraro, 1931). Other models also include the IMF
Magnetosheath plasma jets are periods of high dynamic pressure caused by either increases in density or earthward flow velocity of the magnetosheath plasma (Krämer et al., 2025). Magnetosheath jets are typically localized, constrained in size (Fatemi et al., 2024), and are formed due to a variety of processes, including foreshock effects, upstream discontinuities, and microphysical effects at the bow shock (Plaschke et al., 2018). Discontinuities in the solar wind can also rattle the boundaries. The interaction of a tangential discontinuity (e.g., a density structure) with the bow shock and magnetosphere launches a fast-mode magnetosonic shock wave through the magnetosheath (Maynard et al., 2008; Wu et al., 1993). Another form of magnetic enhancement in the magnetosheath, known as paramagnetic plasmoids, can also form during the passage of upstream discontinuities (Karlsson et al., 2015). Both the fast shocks and paramagnetic plasmoids are compressive structures. Upon encountering the magnetopause, the magnetosheath plasma is typically either deflected around the magnetosphere or enters the magnetosphere through reconnection. The ion plasma
Sunward flows in the magnetosheath are rare. Some observational studies associate sunward flows with the magnetopause boundary motion in response to either a change in the upstream dynamic pressure or due to indentation of the magnetopause boundary (Siscoe et al., 1980; Shue et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2024; Farrugia et al., 2018). As the magnetopause moves outward, it drives the magnetosheath plasma with different
2 Data and methods
In this study, we use data from the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) (Angelopoulos, 2008), Cluster (Escoubet et al., 2001), Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) (Burch et al., 2016), and Wind (Harten and Clark, 1995) missions. The fortuitous configuration of these spacecraft on the dayside geospace allows for a multi-point study of this event. The magnetic field data are obtained from the fluxgate magnetometer (FGM) instruments onboard the spacecraft. For THEMIS and MMS, we use 16 Hz magnetic field data products, while for Cluster, the data cadence is 5 Hz. The THEMIS ion data are taken from the reduced distributions of the electrostatic analyzer (ESA). All plasma moments from the THEMIS spacecraft are recalculated from the returned distributions. The solar wind dynamic pressure is calculated from measurements by the Wind Three-Dimension Plasma (3DP) instrument (Lin et al., 1995).
3 Observations and analysis results
In this section, we describe the impact of a density structure in the solar wind on the magnetosheath. The density structure is observed within the magnetic cloud of an interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) observed on 24 April 2023. The upstream solar wind plasma conditions and the interaction of the structure with the Earth’s bow shock have been characterized in earlier studies (Madanian et al., 2024a), and it has been shown that high abundances of protons, alpha particles, and singly charged helium ions exist within the density enhancement. This event caused significant geomagnetic activity and displacement of the bow shock and magnetopause from their nominal positions (Liu et al., 2024). Prior to the onset of the density peak, the solar wind plasma is dominated by the high magnetic pressure in the strong magnetic fields of the magnetic cloud (very low

Figure 1. Pressure terms associated with the density structure in the solar wind, as observed by the solar wind monitor. The data have been time-shifted to account for the travel time to Earth’s bow shock. (a) Thermal pressure (blue), magnetic pressure (black), and the total pressure (red). (b) Dynamic pressure.
We analyze data from three constellations of spacecraft, namely, THEMIS, Cluster, and MMS, positioned across the dayside magnetosheath during this event. Figure 2 shows the spacecraft positions with respect to the nominal bow shock and magnetopause boundaries. The conic section parameters are selected to match the MMS1 and THEMIS-E (TH-E) crossings of the bow shock and magnetopause, respectively. The MMS spacecraft are initially inside the magnetosheath and close to the bow shock. We only show data from MMS1 since the four MMS spacecraft are in a close tetrahedron formation and make similar observations. TH-D, TH-A, and TH-E spacecraft are inside the magnetosheath and closer to the nose of the magnetopause, while Cluster 2 (CL2) and CL4 spacecraft are in the magnetosheath, with CL2 positioned above the ecliptic plane and separated from CL4 by 4.3 RE.

Figure 2. Spacecraft positions and magnetic field measurements. The schematic on the left (panel (a)) shows the projection of spacecraft positions on the
The magnetic field measurements by each spacecraft are shown on the right panels in Figure 2. The Earth’s bow shock recedes inward upon encountering the high dynamic pressure structure in the solar wind, placing different spacecraft in the solar wind until it bounces back out. The durations of solar wind segments (the gray shaded areas) are consistent with the spacecraft distances to the bow shock and the bow shock breathing motion. In the solar wind, a rotation in the magnetic field is evident in MMS and CL2 data where the
We determine the normal vector direction during contraction and expansion motions (each side of the gray shaded areas in Figure 2) using the minimum variance analysis (MVA) (Sonnerup and Cahill, 1967). The solid vectors at each spacecraft in Figure 2a show the normal vectors during the inward motion, while the dashed vectors are determined for the expanding bow shock. Based on the orientation of the normal vectors, it appears that the bow shock is more curved during the expansion motion than during the receding motion. The sequence of bow shock crossings also indicates that the bow shock contraction occurs faster than its expansion at Cluster and MMS orbits, while it expands faster near the nose region where the THEMIS spacecraft are positioned. We compared MVA estimates of the normal vector with estimates from the mixed coplanarity method. For several crossings, the two estimates are consistent and within a few degrees (
3.1 Magnetic enhancement in the magnetosheath
An interesting feature observed inside the magnetosheath and ahead of the receding bow shock is the magnetic enhancement observed by all THEMIS and Cluster spacecraft in Figure 2. This structure is marked with purple boxes in the magnetic field time series data. The sequence of observations in the time series data begins with TH-D at 03:51:26 UT. The CL2 spacecraft observes the enhancement 4 s after TH-D, and TH-A and TH-E observe the onset of the enhancement within 9 and 12 s, respectively, after TH-D. The initial magnetic jump ratio (enhancement from the ambient magnetosheath field) is
Figure 3 shows the plasma and field measurements by TH-E around the magnetic peak identified by vertical dashed lines. The magnetic field components in panel (b) indicate that the field increases along the background magnetic field, while the normal vector to the shock front is mostly along the Sun–Earth line. The ion energy flux spectrogram within the magnetic enhancement in panel (c) shows higher ion energy fluxes across all energies. The flow velocity downstream of the shock is also more anti-sunward. Plasma densities in panel (e) during the magnetic enhancement also increase (both electrons and ions) by roughly similar ratios as those observed for the magnetic field enhancements. Such a correlation in density and magnetic field variations is indicative of the compressional nature of the structure. Using the mixed coplanarity method, we obtain the shock normal vector

Figure 3. Magnetic field and plasma measurements around the magnetic enhancement structure measured by the TH-E spacecraft. (a,b) Magnetic field magnitude and components, (c) ion energy flux spectrogram, and (d,e) plasma velocity and density, respectively. The fast magnetosonic shock wave (FMSW) and signatures of acceleration and compression by the shock are annotated in the figure.
The magnetic enhancement ends with a sudden decrease in the absolute value of the
3.2 Sunward flows
The passage of the density structure through the magnetosheath and the breathing motion of the bow shock are followed by sunward plasma flows in the magnetosheath. These flows are observed by TH-D, TH-A, and TH-E spacecraft and are shown in Figure 4. Measurements of the proton plasma from CL4 (not shown) do not indicate any signs of sunward flows, while the MMS spacecraft near the bow shock measures anti-sunward flows (Madanian et al., 2024a). Therefore, the extent of sunward flows is limited to the inner magnetosheath. The periods of sunward flows

Figure 4. Sunward flows in the magnetosheath plasma. Magnetic field, the plasma velocity, and ion (black) and electron (gold) densities are shown from TH-D in panels (a–c), TH-A in panels (d–f), and TH-E in panels (g–i). Panel j shows a cut-through ion distributions in the
The flow reversal from anti-sunward to sunward directions begins with flow becoming less anti-sunward, and the initial part of the flow reversal can be due to the reduction in flux or slow-down of the anti-sunward flow (i.e., transition to the fully heated solar wind plasma). As the magnetosheath plasma flow becomes sunward, the plasma densities decrease to values comparable to those observed during the fast magnetosonic shock structure (i.e., at the beginning of each interval in panels (c), (f), and (i)). The maximum sunward plasma speed
The distribution cut in Figure 4j in the

Figure 5. Partial moment analysis of sunward flows observed by the THD spacecraft. (a) Magnetic field data, (b) ion energy flux spectrogram, and (c,d) ion velocity and density, respectively, for all ions (of all measured energies); (e,f) 3–10 keV ions, (g,h) 0.6–2 keV ions, and (i,j) 50 eV–500 eV ions. The flow velocity and magnetic field components along
4 Discussion
4.1 Solitary magnetic structure in the magnetosheath
Unlike the observation sequence of the receding bow shock that follows the spacecraft distances from the bow shock, the first observation of the magnetosonic shock wave in the magnetosheath is by the TH-D probe, which is downstream of the Cluster spacecraft. The MMS spacecraft positioned immediately downstream of the bow shock does not show such a magnetic enhancement. Therefore, it appears that certain conditions in the magnetosheath must be present for the fast magnetosonic shock to form, rather than being launched immediately at the bow shock. The high abundances of alpha particles and singly charged helium ions during this event result in these ion populations (and also protons, but to a lesser degree) traveling at super-Alfvénic speeds in the magnetosheath upon crossing the bow shock (Madanian et al., 2024a). If a fraction of ions crossing the bow shock remain super-Alfvénic, they can cause perturbations in the magnetosheath to generate additional heating. Alpha particles and He+ ions can change the accuracy of the reported plasma moments. These ions can also modify the underlying assumptions used for the fluid approximation of a planar shock (Lin et al., 2006).
While the magnetic field enhancement across the fast shock wave is along the background magnetic field, the wavefront propagates perpendicular or at highly oblique angles to the background magnetic field. The timing analysis of the shock front observations indicates that the shock wave traveled the 0.7 RE distance along the Sun–Earth line between TH-D and TH-A spacecraft at a speed of
4.2 Cause of sunward flows
Observations of sunward flows thus far have been associated with the sunward motion of the magnetopause boundary and pressure gradient forces driving the plasma (Archer et al., 2015; Shue et al., 2009). During the event discussed in this study, due to strong magnetic fields within the magnetic cloud flux rope, the ion
As discussed in Section 3.1, the earthward propagating shock causes enhancement of the magnetic pressure in the magnetosheath. Figure 6a shows magnetic pressure terms from TH-A and TH-D spacecraft. In panel (b), we estimate instantaneous acceleration rates projected along the Sun–Earth line using

Figure 6. Magnetic pressure gradient observed by the THEMIS spacecraft. (a) Magnetic pressures from TH-D and TH-A, (b) plasma acceleration along the Sun–Earth line, and (c) ion velocities at TH-D.
Our observations further indicate that the sunward flows are unrelated to the magnetopause boundary motion. Magnetic field measurements during the magnetopause boundary crossing at 04:03:00 UT by the TH-E spacecraft in Figure 2g indicate that the magnetic pressure in the magnetosheath is slightly higher than the magnetospheric magnetic pressure. Thus, the magnetopause motion is limited by the high magnetic pressure in the magnetosheath, and the magnetopause is controlled by the strong magnetic fields within the magnetosheath. In addition, a sunward magnetopause boundary motion leads to a more consistent flow pattern across different THEMIS spacecraft. In Figure 4, when the sunward flows at TH-E begin to slow down at
5 Conclusion
In this study, we characterize a series of events in the magnetosheath caused by the interaction of an upstream density structure embedded within a strong flux rope of an ICME. Strong magnetic fields within the magnetic cloud of the ICME dominate the plasma interactions within the magnetosheath and magnetopause. We show evidence for the formation of a magnetic enhancement in the inner magnetosheath associated with a fast magnetosonic shock wave caused by the sudden surge of upstream charged particles and the associated dynamic pressure pulse. We find that the sunward flows are formed due to magnetosheath expansion and the sunward motion of the flux tubes driven by the magnetic pressure gradient force in the inner magnetosheath, with sunward expansion rates as high as 6.7 km/s2. The rarefaction effects following the density structure cause sunward flows in the magnetosheath, which responds to the upstream dynamic pressure decrease caused by expanding sunward. These events cause significant geomagnetic activity and are significant in space weather.
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found at https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
Author contributions
HM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. YP: Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. RR: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. TL: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. TK: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. SR: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review and editing. DT: Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. JB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the NASA MMS project through the Partnership for Heliophysics and Space Environment Research (PHaSER) cooperative agreement. YP-K acknowledges the Research Council of Finland grant number 339756. SR acknowledges funding from the MMS Early Career Award 80NSSC25K7353. RR was supported by the MMS Early Career Grant 80NSSC23K1601.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the THEMIS, MMS, and Cluster operation teams for making the data available. They acknowledge the THEMIS magnetometer team at the Technical University of Braunschweig for the use of FGM data, provided with the financial support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) under contract 50 OC 2201.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
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.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2025.1574577/full#supplementary-material
References
Angelopoulos, V. (2008). The THEMIS mission. Space Sci. Rev. 141, 5–34. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9336-1
Archer, M., Turner, D., Eastwood, J., Schwartz, S., and Horbury, T. (2015). Global impacts of a Foreshock Bubble: magnetosheath, magnetopause and ground-based observations. Planet. Space Sci. 106, 56–66. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.026
Archer, M. O., Turner, D. L., Eastwood, J. P., Horbury, T. S., and Schwartz, S. J. (2014). The role of pressure gradients in driving sunward magnetosheath flows and magnetopause motion. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 119, 8117–8125. doi:10.1002/2014JA020342
Broll, J. M., Fuselier, S. A., Trattner, K. J., Schwartz, S. J., Burch, J. L., Giles, B. L., et al. (2018). MMS observation of shock-reflected He ++ at Earth’s quasi-perpendicular bow shock. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 49–55. doi:10.1002/2017GL075411
Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., and Giles, B. L. (2016). Magnetospheric Multiscale overview and science objectives. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 5–21. doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0164-9
Burgess, D. (1989). Alpha particles in field-aligned beams upstream of the bow shock: simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 16, 163–166. doi:10.1029/GL016i002p00163
Burgess, D., Hellinger, P., Gingell, I., and Trávníček, P. M. (2016). Microstructure in two- and three-dimensional hybrid simulations of perpendicular collisionless shocks. J. Plasma Phys. 82, 905820401. doi:10.1017/S0022377816000660
Burkholder, B. L., Chen, L.-J., Sorathia, K., Sciola, A., Merkin, S., Trattner, K. J., et al. (2023). The complexity of the day-side X-line during southward interplanetary magnetic field. Front. Astronomy Space Sci. 10, 1175697. doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1175697
Chapman, S., and Ferraro, V. C. A. (1931). A new theory of magnetic storms. Terr. Magnetism Atmos. Electr. 36, 77–97. doi:10.1029/TE036i002p00077
Escoubet, C. P., Fehringer, M., and Goldstein, M. (2001). IntroductionThe cluster mission. Ann. Geophys. 19, 1197–1200. doi:10.5194/angeo-19-1197-2001
Farris, M. H., and Russell, C. T. (1994). Determining the standoff distance of the bow shock: Mach number dependence and use of models. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 17681–17689. doi:10.1029/94JA01020
Farrugia, C. J., Cohen, I. J., Vasquez, B. J., Lugaz, N., Alm, L., Torbert, R. B., et al. (2018). Effects in the near-magnetopause magnetosheath elicited by large-amplitude alfvénic fluctuations terminating in a field and flow discontinuity. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 123, 8983–9004. doi:10.1029/2018JA025724
Fatemi, S., Hamrin, M., Krämer, E., Gunell, H., Nordin, G., Karlsson, T., et al. (2024). Unveiling the 3D structure of magnetosheath jets. Mon. Notices R. Astronomical Soc. 531, 4692–4713. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1456
Fuselier, S. A., Klumpar, D. M., and Shelley, E. G. (1991). Ion Reflection and transmission during reconnection at the Earth’s subsolar magnetopause. Geophys. Res. Lett. 18, 139–142. doi:10.1029/90GL02676
Gurchumelia, A., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Burgess, D., Yordanova, E., Elbakidze, K., Kharshiladze, O., et al. (2022). Comparing quasi-parallel and quasi-perpendicular configuration in the terrestrial magnetosheath: multifractal analysis. Front. Phys. 10, 903632. doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.903632
Harten, R., and Clark, K. (1995). The design features of the GGS wind and polar spacecraft. Space Sci. Rev. 71, 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF00751324
Karlsson, T., Kullen, A., Liljeblad, E., Brenning, N., Nilsson, H., Gunell, H., et al. (2015). On the origin of magnetosheath plasmoids and their relation to magnetosheath jets: on the origin of magnetosheath plasmoids. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 7390–7403. doi:10.1002/2015JA021487
Krämer, E., Koller, F., Suni, J., LaMoury, A. T., Pöppelwerth, A., Glebe, G., et al. (2025). Jets downstream of collisionless shocks: recent discoveries and challenges. Space Sci. Rev. 221, 4. doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01129-3
Krasnoselskikh, V., Balikhin, M., Walker, S. N., Schwartz, S., Sundkvist, D., Lobzin, V., et al. (2013). The dynamic quasiperpendicular shock: Cluster discoveries. Space Sci. Rev. 178, 535–598. doi:10.1007/s11214-013-9972-y
Lin, C. C., Chao, J. K., Lee, L. C., Lyu, L. H., and Wu, D. J. (2006). A new shock fitting procedure for the MHD Rankine-Hugoniot relations for the case of small He2+ slippage. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 111, 2005JA011449. doi:10.1029/2005JA011449
Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., Carlson, C., Curtis, D., Ergun, R., et al. (1995). A three-dimensional plasma and energetic particle investigation for the wind spacecraft. Space Sci. Rev. 71, 125–153. doi:10.1007/BF00751328
Liu, T. Z., Shi, X., Hartinger, M. D., Angelopoulos, V., Rodger, C. J., Viljanen, A., et al. (2024). Global observations of geomagnetically induced currents caused by an extremely intense density pulse during a coronal mass ejection. Space weather. 22, e2024SW003993. doi:10.1029/2024SW003993
Madanian, H., Chen, L.-J., Ng, J., Starkey, M. J., Fuselier, S. A., Bessho, N., et al. (2024a). Interaction of the prominence plasma within the magnetic cloud of an interplanetary coronal mass ejection with the Earth’s bow shock. Astrophysical J. 976, 219. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8579
Madanian, H., Gingell, I., Chen, L.-J., and Monyek, E. (2024b). Drivers of magnetic field amplification at oblique shocks: in situ observations. Astrophysical J. Lett. 965, L12. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3073
Madanian, H., Liu, T. Z., Phan, T. D., Trattner, K. J., Karlsson, T., and Liemohn, M. W. (2022). Asymmetric interaction of a solar wind reconnecting current sheet and its magnetic hole with Earth’s bow shock and magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 127. doi:10.1029/2021JA030079
Maynard, N. C., Farrugia, C. J., Ober, D. M., Burke, W. J., Dunlop, M., Mozer, F. S., et al. (2008). Cluster observations of fast shocks in the magnetosheath launched as a tangential discontinuity with a pressure increase crossed the bow shock: fast shocks in the magnetosheath. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 113. doi:10.1029/2008JA013121
Phan, T. D., Gosling, J. T., Paschmann, G., Pasma, C., Drake, J. F., Øieroset, M., et al. (2010). The dependence of magnetic reconnection on plasma β and magnetic shear: evidence from solar wind observations. Astrophysical J. 719, L199–L203. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L199
Plaschke, F., Angelopoulos, V., and Glassmeier, K. (2013). Magnetopause surface waves: THEMIS observations compared to MHD theory. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118, 1483–1499. doi:10.1002/jgra.50147
Plaschke, F., Hietala, H., Archer, M., Blanco-Cano, X., Kajdič, P., Karlsson, T., et al. (2018). Jets downstream of collisionless shocks. Space Sci. Rev. 214, 81. doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0516-3
Schwartz, S. J., Goodrich, K. A., Wilson, L. B., Turner, D. L., Trattner, K. J., Kucharek, H., et al. (2022). Energy partition at collisionless supercritical quasi-perpendicular shocks. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 127, e2022JA030637. doi:10.1029/2022JA030637
Shue, J., Chao, J., Song, P., McFadden, J. P., Suvorova, A., Angelopoulos, V., et al. (2009). Anomalous magnetosheath flows and distorted subsolar magnetopause for radial interplanetary magnetic fields. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 2009GL039842. doi:10.1029/2009GL039842
Shue, J.-H., Song, P., Russell, C. T., Steinberg, J. T., Chao, J. K., Zastenker, G., et al. (1998). Magnetopause location under extreme solar wind conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 103, 17691–17700. doi:10.1029/98JA01103
Siscoe, G. L., Crooker, N. U., and Belcher, J. W. (1980). Sunward flow in Jupiter’s magnetosheath. Geophys. Res. Lett. 7, 25–28. doi:10.1029/GL007i001p00025
Sonnerup, B. U., and Cahill, L. J. (1967). Magnetopause structure and attitude from Explorer 12 observations. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 171. doi:10.1029/JZ072i001p00171
Wu, B. H., Mandt, M. E., Lee, L. C., and Chao, J. K. (1993). Magnetospheric response to solar wind dynamic pressure variations: interaction of interplanetary tangential discontinuities with the bow shock. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 21297–21311. doi:10.1029/93JA01013
Keywords: shocks, magnetosheath, space weather, solar wind, space plasmas, bow shock, interplanetary coronal mass ejection
Citation: Madanian H, Pfau-Kempf Y, Rice R, Liu T, Karlsson T, Raptis S, Turner D and Beedle J (2025) Sunward flows in the magnetosheath associated with the magnetic pressure gradient and magnetosheath expansion. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 12:1574577. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1574577
Received: 11 February 2025; Accepted: 16 April 2025;
Published: 20 May 2025.
Edited by:
Guram Kervalishvili, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, GermanyReviewed by:
Shan Wang, Peking University, ChinaMasaru Nakanotani, University of Alabama in Huntsville, United States
Copyright © 2025 Madanian, Pfau-Kempf, Rice, Liu, Karlsson, Raptis, Turner and Beedle. 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: H. Madanian, aGFkaUBlcGV4c2NpLmNvbQ==
†H. Madanian, Epex Scientific, Richmond, VA, United States