DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Mercury's Dynamic Magnetosphere

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Mercury's Dynamic Magnetosphere Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences Review of Mercury’s Dynamic Magnetosphere: Post-MESSENGER Era and Comparative Magnetospheres Weijie SUN 1*, Ryan M. DEWEY 1, Sae AIZAWA 2,3, Jia HUANG 1, James A. SLAVIN 1, Suiyan FU 4, Yong WEI 5,6 & Charles F. BOWERS 1 1 Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA 2 Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, CNRS-UPS-CNES, Toulouse 31400, France 3 Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 4 School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 5 Key Laboratory of Earth and Planetary Physics, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China 6 School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100864, China * Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) Citations. Sun W., Dewey R. M., Aizawa S., Huang J., Slavin J. A., Fu S., Wei Y., Bowers C. 2021. Review of Mercury’s Dynamic Magnetosphere: Post-MESSENGER Era and Comparative Magnetospheres, SCIENCE CHINA Earth Sciences. ISSN 1674-7313, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-021-9828-0. 1 Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences Abstract. This review summarizes the research of Mercury’s magnetosphere in the Post- MESSENGER era and compares its dynamics to those in other planetary magnetospheres, especially to those in Earth’s magnetosphere. This review starts by introducing the planet Mercury, including its interplanetary environment, magnetosphere, exosphere, and conducting core. The frequent and intense magnetic reconnection on the dayside magnetopause, which is represented by the flux transfer event “shower”, is reviewed on how they depend on magnetosheath plasma and magnetic shear angle across the magnetopause, following by how it contributes to the flux circulation and magnetosphere-surface-exosphere coupling. In the next, the progress of Mercury’s magnetosphere under extreme solar events, including the core induction and the reconnection erosion on the dayside magnetosphere, the responses of the nightside magnetosphere, are reviewed. Then, the dawn-dusk properties of the plasma sheet, including the features of the ions, the structure of the current sheet, and the dynamics of magnetic reconnection, are summarized. The last topic reviews the particle energization in Mercury’s magnetosphere, which includes the energization of the Kelvin-Helmholtz waves on the magnetopause boundaries, reconnection-generated magnetic structures, and the cross-tail electric field. In each chapter, the last section discusses the open questions related to each topic, which can be considered by the simulations and the future spacecraft mission. We close by summarizing the future BepiColombo opportunities, which is a joint mission of ESA and JAXA and is en route to Mercury. Keywords. Mercury’s magnetosphere, flux transfer event shower, extreme solar events, core induction, reconnection erosion, dawn-dusk asymmetry, substorm current wedge, particle energization, Kelvin-Helmholtz wave 2 Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences Contents 1. Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.1. Planet Mercury in the Solar System ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.2. Purpose and Structure of the Review --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1.3. Mercury’s Interplanetary Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 1.4. Mercury’s Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere --------------------------------------------------------- 8 1.5. Mercury’s Neutral Exosphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 1.6. Ions in Mercury’s Magnetosphere ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 1.7. Mercury’s Conducting Core and Conductivity Profile ----------------------------------------------- 15 2. Flux Transfer Event “Showers” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 2.1. Flux Transfer Event and Magnetic Flux Rope --------------------------------------------------------- 18 2.2. Cases of Flux Transfer Event Showers at Mercury --------------------------------------------------- 22 2.3. Dayside Magnetopause Reconnection ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23 2.4. Transport of Flux from Dayside to Nightside ---------------------------------------------------------- 26 2.5. Transport Particles into Magnetosphere ---------------------------------------------------------------- 27 2.6. Open Questions Regarding FTE showers --------------------------------------------------------------- 29 3. Magnetosphere under Extreme Solar Events ----------------------------------------------------------------- 32 3.1. Core Induction and Reconnection Erosion ------------------------------------------------------------- 32 3.2. Dayside Magnetosphere under Extreme Solar Events ------------------------------------------------ 33 3.3. The Nightside Magnetosphere Response --------------------------------------------------------------- 37 3.4. Polar Cap Potential Saturations -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 3.5. Open Questions Regarding Magnetosphere under Extreme Solar Event --------------------------- 41 4. Dawn-Dusk Properties of the Plasma Sheet ------------------------------------------------------------------ 43 4.1. Magnetotail ion distributions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 4.2. Magnetotail current sheet structure ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 4.3. Magnetotail reconnection dynamics --------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 4.4. Substorm Current Wedge and Current Closure -------------------------------------------------------- 52 4.5. Open Questions Regarding Plasma Sheet Dynamics ------------------------------------------------- 54 5. Particle Energization in Mercury’s Magnetosphere --------------------------------------------------------- 56 5.1. Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) Waves Energizations -------------------------------------------------------- 56 5.2. Dipolarization Fronts and Flux Rope Energization --------------------------------------------------- 59 5.3. Ion Cross-Tail Energization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 62 5.4. Open Questions Regarding the Particle Accelerations ------------------------------------------------ 63 6. Future BepiColombo Opportunities --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 3 Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences Acknowledgments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66 References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 4 Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences 1. Introduction 1.1. Planet Mercury in the Solar System Mercury is the smallest and the innermost planet in the Solar System. The mean diameter of Mercury is around 4880 km, which is about 38% of Earth’s diameter (~ 12,742 km). Mercury is even slightly smaller than moons such as Ganymede (~ 5262 km) and Titan (~ 5148 km, Zebker et al. (2009)). Ganymede is a Galilean moon (Jupiter III), and is the largest known satellite in the Solar System, while Titan is the largest satellite of Saturn. Interestingly, Ganymede contains significant amounts of water (Pilcher et al., 1972) and Titan contains a subsurface ocean (Grasset et al., 2000; Iess et al., 2012), while Mercury is a more massive rocky planet similar to Earth. Figure 1. The orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars around the Sun. These orbits are projected onto the plane of Earth’s orbit, which has an inclination angle of 7.155° to the Sun’s equator. The black and red dots represent each planet’s perihelion and aphelion, respectively. The true anomaly angle (TAA) of Mercury is the counterclockwise angle from the perihelion as viewed from the north celestial pole. The positions of the planets and the Sun are obtained through the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides (See Park et al., 2021). Due to its proximity to the Sun, Mercury is difficult to study with Earth’s ground-based observatories. Figure 1 illustrates the orbits of Mercury and the Earth around the Sun. Mercury orbits the Sun in a period of ~ 88 Earth days with an orbital inclination angle of ~ 3.38° relative to the Sun’s equator in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF). Mercury’s orbital eccentricity (~0.206) is the largest among the planets in the Solar System. The perihelion of Mercury’s orbit is ~ 0.307 AU and the aphelion is ~ 0.467 AU. The distance from the Sun at perihelion is around two-thirds of the distance at aphelion. Here, AU is the astronomical unit (~ 1 Manuscript Accepted by Science China Earth Sciences 1.496 × 1011 m), which is the average distance from Earth to the Sun. Taking Earth’s orbit as a comparison, the perihelion of the Earth’s orbit is ~0.983 AU and the aphelion is ~ 1.017 AU. The distance from the Sun at perihelion is ~96.7% of the distance at aphelion with an eccentricity of ~0.0167. Viewed from the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field Y Component on the Dayside
    Liou and Mitchell Geosci. Lett. (2019) 6:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-019-0141-3 RESEARCH LETTER Open Access Efects of the interplanetary magnetic feld y component on the dayside aurora K. Liou* and E. Mitchell Abstract A dawn–dusk asymmetry in many high-latitude ionospheric and magnetospheric phenomena, including the aurora, can be linked to the east–west (y) component of the interplanetary magnetic feld (IMF). Owing to the scarcity of observations in the Southern Hemisphere, most of the previous fndings are associated with the Northern Hemi- sphere. It has long been suspected that if the IMF By component also produces a dawn–dusk asymmetry and/or a mirror image in the Southern Hemisphere as predicted by some theories. The present study explores the efect of the IMF By component on the dayside aurora from both hemispheres by analyzing the auroral emission data from the Global UltraViolet scanning spectrograph Imager on board the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics mission spacecraft from 2002 to 2007. The data set comprises 28,774 partial images of the northern hemispheric oval and 29,742 partial images of the southern hemispheric oval, allowing for a statistical analysis. It is found that even though auroras in diferent regions of the dayside oval respond diferently to the orientation of the IMF By component, their responses are opposite between the two hemispheres. For example, at ~ 1400–1600 MLT in the Northern Hemisphere, where the so-called 1500 MLT auroral hot spots occur, peak auroral energy fux is larger for negative IMF By comparing to positive IMF By.
    [Show full text]
  • Marina Galand
    Thermosphere - Ionosphere - Magnetosphere Coupling! Canada M. Galand (1), I.C.F. Müller-Wodarg (1), L. Moore (2), M. Mendillo (2), S. Miller (3) , L.C. Ray (1) (1) Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, U.K. (2) Center for Space Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA (3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, U.K. 1." Energy crisis at giant planets Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute 2." TIM coupling Cassini/ISS (false color) 3." Modeling of IT system 4." Comparison with observaons Cassini/UVIS 5." Outstanding quesAons (Pryor et al., 2011) SATURN JUPITER (Gladstone et al., 2007) Cassini/UVIS [UVIS team] Cassini/VIMS (IR) Credit: J. Clarke (BU), NASA [VIMS team/JPL, NASA, ESA] 1. SETTING THE SCENE: THE ENERGY CRISIS AT THE GIANT PLANETS THERMAL PROFILE Exosphere (EARTH) Texo 500 km Key transiLon region Thermosphere between the space environment and the lower atmosphere Ionosphere 85 km Mesosphere 50 km Stratosphere ~ 15 km Troposphere SOLAR ENERGY DEPOSITION IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE Solar photons ion, e- Neutral Suprathermal electrons B ion, e- Thermal e- Ionospheric Thermosphere Ne, Nion e- heang Te P, H * + Airglow Neutral atmospheric Exothermic reacAons heang IS THE SUN THE MAIN ENERGY SOURCE OF PLANERATY THERMOSPHERES? W Main energy source: UV solar radiaon Main energy source? EartH Outer planets CO2 atmospHeres Exospheric temperature (K) [aer Mendillo et al., 2002] ENERGY CRISIS AT THE GIANT PLANETS Observed values at low to mid-latudes solsce equinox Modeled values (Sun only) [Aer
    [Show full text]
  • A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration
    Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop 2017 (LPI Contrib. No. 1989) 8250.pdf A FUTURE MARS ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENCE AND EXPLORATION. J. L. Green1, J. Hol- lingsworth2, D. Brain3, V. Airapetian4, A. Glocer4, A. Pulkkinen4, C. Dong5 and R. Bamford6 (1NASA HQ, 2ARC, 3U of Colorado, 4GSFC, 5Princeton University, 6Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Introduction: Today, Mars is an arid and cold world of existing simulation tools that reproduce the physics with a very thin atmosphere that has significant frozen of the processes that model today’s Martian climate. A and underground water resources. The thin atmosphere series of simulations can be used to assess how best to both prevents liquid water from residing permanently largely stop the solar wind stripping of the Martian on its surface and makes it difficult to land missions atmosphere and allow the atmosphere to come to a new since it is not thick enough to completely facilitate a equilibrium. soft landing. In its past, under the influence of a signif- Models hosted at the Coordinated Community icant greenhouse effect, Mars may have had a signifi- Modeling Center (CCMC) are used to simulate a mag- cant water ocean covering perhaps 30% of the northern netic shield, and an artificial magnetosphere, for Mars hemisphere. When Mars lost its protective magneto- by generating a magnetic dipole field at the Mars L1 sphere, three or more billion years ago, the solar wind Lagrange point within an average solar wind environ- was allowed to directly ravish its atmosphere.[1] The ment. The magnetic field will be increased until the lack of a magnetic field, its relatively small mass, and resulting magnetotail of the artificial magnetosphere its atmospheric photochemistry, all would have con- encompasses the entire planet as shown in Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffuse Electron Precipitation in Magnetosphere-Ionosphere- Thermosphere Coupling
    EGU21-6342 https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-6342 EGU General Assembly 2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Diffuse electron precipitation in magnetosphere-ionosphere- thermosphere coupling Dong Lin1, Wenbin Wang1, Viacheslav Merkin2, Kevin Pham1, Shanshan Bao3, Kareem Sorathia2, Frank Toffoletto3, Xueling Shi1,4, Oppenheim Meers5, George Khazanov6, Adam Michael2, John Lyon7, Jeffrey Garretson2, and Brian Anderson2 1High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, United States of America 2Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel MD, USA 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston TX, USA 4Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA, USA 5Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston MA, USA 6Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, Greenbelt MD, USA 7Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH, USA Auroral precipitation plays an important role in magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere (MIT) coupling by enhancing ionospheric ionization and conductivity at high latitudes. Diffuse electron precipitation refers to scattered electrons from the plasma sheet that are lost in the ionosphere. Diffuse precipitation makes the largest contribution to the total precipitation energy flux and is expected to have substantial impacts on the ionospheric conductance and affect the electrodynamic coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere-thermosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Small-Scale Flux Transfer Events Formed in the Reconnection Exhaust Region Between Two X Lines
    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics RESEARCH ARTICLE Small-Scale Flux Transfer Events Formed in the Reconnection 10.1029/2018JA025611 Exhaust Region Between Two X Lines Key Points: K.-J. Hwang1 , D. G. Sibeck2 , J. L. Burch1 , E. Choi1 , R. C. Fear3 , B. Lavraud4 , • fl MMS observation of ion-scale ux 2 2 5 6 7 ropes in the reconnection outflow B. L. Giles , D. Gershman , C. J. Pollock , J. P. Eastwood , Y. Khotyaintsev , 8 9 10 11 12 region Philippe Escoubet ,H.Fu , S. Toledo-Redondo , R. B. Torbert , R. E. Ergun , • The initial X line is embedded in the W. R. Paterson2 , J. C. Dorelli2 , L. Avanov2,13 , C. T. Russell14 , and R. J. Strangeway14 exhaust region downstream of a second X line 1Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA, 2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA, 3Physics • Flux transfer events (FTE) are formed 4 between the two X lines due to and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, 5 6 tearing instability CNRS, UPS, CNES, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France, Denali Scientific, LLC, Fairbanks, AK, USA, Imperial College, London, UK, 7Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden, 8European Space Agency, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 9School of Space and Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, China, 10European Space Agency, ESAC, Madrid, Spain, 11Space Science Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, 12Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Correspondence to: University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA, 13The Goddard Planetary Heliophysics Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA, K.-J. Hwang, 14 [email protected] Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Citation: Abstract We report MMS observations of the ion-scale flux transfer events (FTEs) that may involve two Hwang, K.-J., Sibeck, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Wind Magnetosphere Coupling
    Solar Wind Magnetosphere Coupling F. Toffoletto, Rice University Figure courtesy T. W. Hill with thanks to R. A. Wolf and T. W. Hill, Rice U. Outline • Introduction • Properties of the Solar Wind Near Earth • The Magnetosheath • The Magnetopause • Basic Physical Processes that control Solar Wind Magnetosphere Coupling – Open and Closed Magnetosphere Processes – Electrodynamic coupling – Mass, Momentum and Energy coupling – The role of the ionosphere • Current Status and Summary QuickTime™ and a YUV420 codec decompressor are needed to see this picture. Introduction • By virtue of our proximity, the Earth’s magnetosphere is the most studied and perhaps best understood magnetosphere – The system is rather complex in its structure and behavior and there are still some basic unresolved questions – Today’s lecture will focus on describing the coupling to the major driver of the magnetosphere - the solar wind, and the ionosphere – Monday’s lecture will look more at the more dynamic (and controversial) aspect of magnetospheric dynamics: storms and substorms The Solar Wind Near the Earth Solar-Wind Properties Observed Near Earth • Solar wind parameters observed by many spacecraft over period 1963-86. From Hapgood et al. (Planet. Space Sci., 39, 410, 1991). Solar Wind Observed Near Earth Values of Solar-Wind Parameters Parameter Minimum Most Maximum Probable Velocity v (km/s) 250 370 2000× Number density n (cm-3) 683 Ram pressure rv2 (nPa)* 328 Magnetic field strength B 0 6 85 (nanoteslas) IMF Bz (nanoteslas) -31 0¤ 27 * 1 nPa = 1 nanoPascal = 10-9 Newtons/m2. Indicates at least one interval with B < 0.1 nT. ¤ Mean value was 0.014 nT, with a standard deviation of 3.3 nT.
    [Show full text]
  • The UV Aurora and Ionospheric Flows During Flux Transfer Events D
    The UV aurora and ionospheric flows during flux transfer events D. A. Neudegg, S. W. H. Cowley, K. A. Mcwilliams, M. Lester, T. K. Yeoman, J. B. Sigwarth, G. Haerendel, W. Baumjohann, U. Auster, G.-H. Fornacon, et al. To cite this version: D. A. Neudegg, S. W. H. Cowley, K. A. Mcwilliams, M. Lester, T. K. Yeoman, et al.. The UV aurora and ionospheric flows during flux transfer events. Annales Geophysicae, European Geosciences Union, 2001, 19 (2), pp.179-188. hal-00316762 HAL Id: hal-00316762 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00316762 Submitted on 1 Jan 2001 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. c Annales Geophysicae (2001) 19: 179–188 European Geophysical Society 2001 Annales Geophysicae The UV aurora and ionospheric flows during flux transfer events D. A. Neudegg1,*, S. W. H. Cowley1, K. A. McWilliams1, M. Lester1, T. K. Yeoman1, J. Sigwarth2, G. Haerendel3, W. Baumjohann3, U. Auster4, K.-H. Fornacon4, and E. Georgescu5 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK 2Department of Physics, University of Iowa, USA 3Max-Planck Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Germany 4Technische Universität von Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany 5Institute of Space Science, Bucharest, Romania *Now at: Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK Received: 24 July 2000 – Revised: 11 December 2000 – Accepted: 12 December 2000 Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Friday, February 23
    ASTRONOMY 161 Introduction to Solar System Astronomy Class 18 Mercury Friday, February 23 Mercury: Basic characteristics Mass = 3.302×1023 kg (0.055 Earth) Radius = 2,440 km (0.383 Earth) Density = 5,427 kg/m³ Sidereal rotation period = 58.6462 d Albedo = 0.11 (Earth = 0.39) Average distance from Sun = 0.387 A.U. Mercury: Key Concepts (1) Mercury has a 3-to-2 spin-orbit coupling (not synchronous rotation). (2) Mercury has no permanent atmosphere because it is too hot. (3) Like the Moon, Mercury has cratered highlands and smooth plains. (4) Mercury has an extremely large iron-rich core. (1) Mercury has a 3-to-2 spin-orbit coupling (not synchronous rotation). Mercury is hard to observe from the Earth (because it is so close to the Sun). Its rotation speed can be found from Doppler shift of radar signals. Mercury’s unusual orbit Orbital period = 87.969 days Rotation period = 58.646 days = (2/3) x 87.969 days Mercury is NOT in synchronous rotation (1 rotation per orbit). Instead, it has 3-to-2 spin-orbit coupling (3 rotations for 2 orbits). Synchronous rotation (WRONG!) 3-to-2 spin-orbit coupling (RIGHT!) Time between one noon and the next is 176 days. Sun is above the horizon for 88 days at the time. Daytime temperatures reach as high as: 700 Kelvin (800 degrees F). Nighttime temperatures drops as low as: 100 Kelvin (-270 degrees F). (2) Mercury has no permanent atmosphere because it is too hot (and has low escape speed). Temperature is a measure of the 3kT v = random speed of m atoms (or v typical speed of atom molecules).
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging the Surface of Mercury Using Ground-Based Telescopes
    Planetary and Space Science 49 (2001) 1501–1505 www.elsevier.com/locate/planspasci Imaging the surface of Mercury using ground-based telescopes Michael Mendilloa; ∗, Johan Warellb, Sanjay S. Limayec, Je+rey Baumgardnera, Ann Spragued, Jody K. Wilsona aCenter for Space Physics, Boston University, 725 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215, USA bAstronomiska Observatoriet, Uppsala Universitet, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden cSpace Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA dLunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Received 26 October 2000; received in revised form 12 March2001; accepted 4 May 2001 Abstract We describe and compare two methods of short-exposure, high-deÿnition ground-based imaging of the planet Mercury. Two teams have recorded images of Mercury on di+erent dates, from di+erent locations, and withdi+erent observational and data reduction techniques. Both groups have achieved spatial resolutions of ¡ 250 km, and the same albedo features and contrast levels appear where the two datasets overlap (longitudes 270–360◦). Dark albedo regions appear as mare and correlate well withsmoothterrain radar signatures. Bright albedo features agree optically, but less well withradar data. Suchconÿrmations of state-of-the-artoptical techniquesintroduce a new era of ground-based exploration of Mercury’s surface and its atmosphere. They o+er opportunities for synergistic, cooperative observations before and during the upcoming Messenger and BepiColombo missions to Mercury. c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction maximum separation (elongation) to the west and east of the rising or setting Sun, respectively. Under suchconditions, In this paper, we compare the ÿrst results from two new Mercury can be separated from the Sun by up to 28◦.
    [Show full text]
  • First Look at Mercury
    PLANETARY SCIENCE Mariner 10 was launched to Mercury by way of Venus on November 3, 1973. It was not the first probe to visit Venus. Both the United States and the Soviet Union previously have sent probes to that mysterious, cloud-shrouded planet. However, Mariner 10 was the first to photographically explore the close-up appearance of the planet, and did so both in visibIe and in ultraviolet light. And Mariner 10 was the first probe of any kind to penetrate interplanetary space beyond the orbit of Venus and to achieve a close look at the planet Mercury. First Look Why go to Mercury? Who needs it? There basically are two kinds of reasons. The first is simple and profound and at Mercury difficult to quantify: The very act of exploration is a positive, cultural activity. No one knows what is going to be found. Finding out what Mercury, what Mars, or BRUCE C. MURRAY what the moon is really like, enlarges the consciousness of all the people who partake of that new reality. TV pictures are of special importance because they provide a way both for the scientist to discover features and concepts he could not have imagined and for the public to directly appreciate and participate in the exploration of a new world. Why go to Mercury? Who needs it? But there are more specific scientific objectives as well. For Mercury, the basic-and anomalous-scientific fact is A planetary scientist that it is a very dense planet: It contains a great amount of tells what the voyage mass for its size.
    [Show full text]
  • Mariner 10 Observations of Field-Aligned Currents at Mercury
    Planet. Space Sci., Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 133-141, 1997 Pergamon #I? 1997 Published bv Elsevier Science Ltd P&ted in Great Brit& All rights reserved 0032-0633/97 $17.00+0.00 PII: S0032-0633(96)00104-3 Mariner 10 observations of field-aligned currents at Mercury J. A. Slavin,’ J. C. J. Owen,’ J. E. P. Connerney’ and S. P. Christon ‘Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771, U.S.A. ‘Astronomy Unit, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, U.K. 3Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A. Received 5 October 1995; revised 11 April 1996; accepted 13 April 1996 magnetic field at Mercury with a dipole moment of about 300nT R& (see review by Connerney and Ness (1988)). This magnetic field is sufficient to stand-off the average solar wind at an altitude of about 1 RM as depicted in Fig. 1 (see review by Russell et al. (1988)). For the purposes of comparison the diameter of the Earth is indicated at the bottom of the figure (i.e. 1 RE = 6380 km ; 1 RM = 2439 km). Whether or not the solar wind is ever able to compress and/or erode the dayside magnetosphere to the point where solar wind ions could directly impact the surface remains a topic of considerable controversy (Siscoe and Christopher, 1975 ; Slavin and Holzer, 1979 ; Hood and Schubert, 1979; Suess and Goldstein, 1979; Goldstein et al., 1981). Overall, the basic morphology of this small mag- netosphere appears quite similar to that of the Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Exploration: Looking to the Future
    50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2019 (LPI Contrib. No. 2132) 1105.pdf MERCURY EXPLORATION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE. K. E. Vander Kaaden1, D. T. Blewett2, P. K. Byrne3, N. L. Chabot2, C. M. Ernst2, S. A. Hauck, II4, F. M. McCubbin5, E. Mazarico6. 1Jacobs, NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code XI3, Houston, TX 77058, 2The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, 3Planetary Research Group, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 4Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 5ARES NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058, 6NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected]. Past Exploration of Mercury: Prior to the return of Future Exploration of Mercury: Despite the data from the NASA MErcury Surface, Space influx of data from the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging spacecraft and the much-anticipated data that will be (MESSENGER) spacecraft [1], information relating to collected by BepiColombo, there is a limit to their Mercury was limited. From the NASA Mariner 10 scientific return. While orbiters could still provide finer flybys, in 1974 and 1975, ~45% of the planet was valuable context, they cannot directly sample surface imaged, its magnetic field was detected, H, He, and O materials, nor probe the interior as a landed mission can. in the exosphere were measured, and other physical Furthermore, an orbiter cannot retrieve a sample to be characteristics of the planet were determined [e.g., 2]. sent to Earth for laboratory-based analyses.
    [Show full text]