Draft version September 16, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX62

An -like stellar wind environment for c Julian´ D. Alvarado-Gomez´ 1, ∗ and Jeremy J. Drake2, †

Cecilia Garraffo,3, 2 Ofer Cohen,4 Katja Poppenhaeger,1, 5 Rakesh K. Yadav,6 and Sofia P. Moschou2

1Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany 2Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 3Institute for Applied Computational Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 4University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Department of Physics & Applied Physics, 600 Suffolk Street, Lowell, MA 01854, USA 5University of Potsdam, Institute for Physics and Astronomy, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24/25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany 6Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

(Accepted September 16, 2020) Submitted to ApJL

ABSTRACT A new planet has been recently discovered around Proxima Centauri. With an orbital separation of ∼ 1.44 au and a minimum of about 7 M⊕, Proxima c is a prime direct imaging target for atmospheric characterization. The latter can only be performed with a good understanding of the space environment of the planet, as multiple processes can have profound effects on the atmospheric structure and evolution. Here, we take one step in this direction by generating physically-realistic numerical simulations of Proxima’s stellar wind, coupled to a magnetosphere and ionosphere model around Proxima c. We evaluate their expected variation due to the magnetic cycle of the host , as well as for plausible inclination angles for the orbit. Our results indicate stellar wind dynamic pressures comparable to present-day Earth, with a slight increase (by a factor of 2) during high activity periods of the star. A relatively weak interplanetary magnetic field at the distance of Proxima c leads to negligible stellar wind Joule heating of the upper atmosphere (about 10% of the solar wind contribution on Earth) for an Earth-like planetary magnetic field (0.3 G). Finally, we provide an assessment of the likely extreme conditions experienced by the exoplanet candidate Proxima d, tentatively located at 0.029 au with a minimum mass of 0.29 M⊕.

Keywords: : activity — stars: individual (Proxima Centauri) — stars: late-type — stars: winds, outflows

1. INTRODUCTION times closer than in the case of our own The space weather in M dwarf planetary systems (e.g. Kopparapu et al. 2013, 2014 Shields et al. 2016). presents a particularly challenging case for exoplanet Specifically, the habitable zone semi-major axis (a) 2 atmospheres. The diminutive bolometric luminosity follows a ∝ Lbol (Kopparapu et al. 2013). On the arXiv:2009.07266v1 [astro-ph.SR] 15 Sep 2020 other hand, stellar wind mass loss rates are thought to (Lbol) of M dwarfs means their -based hab- itable zones, within which liquid water can be sustained, scale with X-ray luminosity with a power greater than one (i.e., M˙ ∝ L1.34, Wood et al. 2005). In this way, lie close to the central star—as much as ten or more F X the wind through a unit surface area at the main se- ˙ 2 quence habitable zone distance scales like MF/a ∝ 1.34 1.34 3.5 Corresponding author: J. D. Alvarado-G´omez& J. J. Drake L /Lbol ∝ L /M . Therefore, the stellar wind in- X X F (These authors contributed equally to this work). tensity within the habitable zone increases with decreas- [email protected], [email protected] ing stellar mass. Moreover, M dwarfs remain magneti- ∗ 7 @AstroRaikoh | Karl Schwarzschild Fellow cally very active (i.e., high LX/Lbol values) over much † 7 @cosmodrake longer timescales than higher mass stars (e.g. Wright 2 Alvarado-Gomez´ & Drake et al. et al. 2011, Davenport et al. 2019), so that the integrated (S´egransanet al. 2003, Kiraga & Stepien 2007, Anglada- exposure to the most intense stellar winds is commen- Escud´eet al. 2016). surately greater. Proxima hosts our nearest exoplanetary system and A number of studies employing detailed and realis- presents a unique for exoplanet characteri- tic magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of stellar zation. The first planet discovered in the system, Prox- winds have examined the effects of space weather on ima b, is estimated to be of at least 1.17 Earth , including those in M dwarf systems (e.g. Vi- (Su´arezMascare˜noet al. 2020) and has an dotto et al. 2014, Cohen et al. 2014, Alvarado-G´omez of 11.2 days, with a semi-major axis of only 0.049 au et al. 2019b). For habitable zone planets around M (Anglada-Escud´eet al. 2016). This orbit is approxi- dwarfs, models predict stellar wind dynamic pressures mately twenty times closer to Proxima than the Earth up to four orders of magnitude greater than experienced is to the . Proxima b does not transit Proxima Cen- by the present-day Earth, together with orders of magni- tauri from the vantage point of the solar system (Jenkins tude pressure variations on sub-orbital timescales of one et al. 2019) and its , and consequently to a few days (Vidotto et al. 2014, Garraffo et al. 2016, its mass, are presently unknown. 2017), intense Joule heating (Cohen et al. 2014, 2018), Proxima b is in Proxima’s classically-defined “habit- severe atmospheric loss (Dong et al. 2017, Garcia-Sage able zone”, having an equilibrium temperature of 234 K et al. 2017), and transitions into and out of sub-Alfv´enic (Anglada-Escud´eet al. 2016), which is slightly cooler wind conditions on orbital timescales (Cohen et al. 2014, than that of Earth (255 K). Several studies have ex- Garraffo et al. 2017). amined its likely irradiation history and possible cli- Here, we study the steady stellar wind environment of mate and evolution in relation to potential habitability the new-found planetary companion around our near- (e.g. Ribas et al. 2016, Turbet et al. 2016). est star (Proxima c, Damasso et al. 2020). The discov- Analysis of radial velocity variations by Damasso et al. ery of a planetary system around Proxima (Anglada- (2020) suggested the presence of a secondary ∼ 6−7 M⊕ Escud´eet al. 2016) represented a watershed moment in planet in a ∼ 5 yr orbit around Proxima. Follow-up exoplanetary research—a stark confirmation that plan- studies have placed limits on the properties of Prox- etary systems are very common in the universe with ima c, measuring anomalies in Proxima’s astromet- the tantalizing prospect of potentially being reachable ric proper motion (Kervella et al. 2020, Benedict & by an interstellar probe (e.g. Heller et al. 2017, Parkin McArthur 2020a), as well as direct imaging from ground- 2018). We construct three-dimensional MHD models of based observations (Gratton et al. 2020). Combining all the magnetized stellar wind of Proxima using a state- the available constraints, Benedict & McArthur (2020b) of-the-art computational framework and a surface mag- obtained the most up-to-date set of orbital parameters, netic field map derived from sophisticated dynamo simu- placing it in a circular orbit (e ' 0) at approximately lations tuned to the case of Proxima (Yadav et al. 2016). 1.44 au (∼ 5.3 yr orbital period). We use the models to investigate the conditions expe- A recent study reports a small radial velocity pertur- rienced by Proxima c, which is estimated to have a mass bation of Proxima which, assuming a planetary origin, of about seven times that of Earth, orbiting at a dis- would indicate an additional low-mass object (M sin i ' tance comparable to Mars in the solar system (Damasso 0.29 M⊕) at a distance of ∼ 0.029 au (Su´arezMascare˜no et al. 2020). We evaluate how the stellar wind proper- et al. 2020). If confirmed, it would become the inner- ties change with the magnetic activity level of the host most known planet of the system, orbiting closer than star, and compare our results to those of previous stud- Proxima b and just short of the optimistic habitable ies on other exoplanet systems. Finally, we touch upon zone (∼ 0.03 − 0.09 au, Kane & Gelino 2012). the case of Proxima d, a tentative additional planetary Harsh circumstellar conditions are expected in the sys- candidate of the Proxima system that would be the clos- tem. Proxima itself is a flare star and displays optical, est known planet to the star, lying within the orbit of UV and X-ray variability that is consistent with a stellar Proxima b (Su´arezMascare˜noet al. 2020). activity cycle with a period of about 7 years (Wargelin et al. 2017). The amplitude of the cycle in the stellar X-ray luminosity is of the order of ±50% in an energy 2. THE PROXIMA CENTAURI SYSTEM band of 1.2-2.4 keV, and somewhat lower in softer X- rays at energies 0.2-1.2 keV at approximately ±20%. Proxima Centauri, also just known as Proxima, is an This means that apart from flares, which occur often M5.5 dwarf with an effective temperature of 3042 K, on Proxima (e.g. Fuhrmeister et al. 2011, Vida et al. a mass of 0.122 M , a radius of 0.154 R , a rotation period of 83 days, and an estimated age of 4.85 Gyr An Earth-like stellar environment for Proxima Centauri c 3

2019), the quiescent X-ray environment of the planets minimum (450 G) and maximum (750 G) to match the also changes over time. limits from Zeeman broadening observations of Proxima

Unlike the coronal properties, only limits are available (hBiS = 600 ± 150 G; Reiners & Basri 2008). on the steady and transient outflows from Proxima. Ob- Once an AWSoM steady-state is achieved, it gets servations of the Ly-α astrospheric absorption indicate propagated via three different couplings with the other 7 ˙ ˙ a stellar wind mass loss rate MF < 0.2 M (Wood domains. The first one connects the outer boundary of et al. 2001), while wind-ISM charge exchange X-ray sig- SC with the inner boundary of IH (with a 5 RF domain ˙ ˙ natures place it at MF < 14 M (Wargelin & Drake overlap), while the second one is performed within the 2002). Likewise, despite its frequent flaring, there are no IH domain (along the specified orbit of Proxima c) es- direct detections of coronal mass ejections in Proxima so tablishing the upstream stellar wind conditions as one far (see Moschou et al. 2019 and references therein). of the outer (side) boundaries of GM. As the magne- tosphere relaxes, the third coupling takes place, where 3. NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY field-aligned currents are computed in GM, and then are Our characterization of the stellar wind conditions in the mapped to the IE domain assuming a planetary dipole Proxima Cen system employs the state-of-the-art Space field of −0.3 G (aligned with z-axis) in the case of Prox- Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF, Gombosi et al. ima c. We stress here that there are no observational 2018). Originally developed for solar system studies, constraints on the magnetization of this exoplanet. The the SWMF contains a collection of physics-based mod- planetary field selection was made to ease the compari- els that can be executed individually or can be coupled son with the case of the Earth and other systems studied to cover a wide range of regions within the space envi- with a similar methodology (e.g. Alvarado-G´omezet al. ronment of the Sun (e.g., from the convection zone to the 2019b, Cohen et al. 2020). The IE module uses the field outer heliosphere; see T´othet al. 2012). The simulations aligned currents to calculate the flux of the precipitating presented here consider four modules of the SWMF, cov- electrons, and the energy dissipating in the ionosphere (Joule Heating, hereafter JH) assuming a specific con- ering the stellar corona (SC, ∼ 1.0 − 110 RF), the inner 8 ductance pattern that can be either a constant Pedersen heliosphere (IH, 105 − 2250 RF), the global magneto- 9 sphere (GM , day side: 100 Rp, night side: 225 Rp, conductivity, or a more complicated conductivity pat- North-South: 256 Rp), and a domain for ionospheric tern that can be obtained from other models or data. electrodynamics (IE10). In the Earth case, the integrated conductivity ranges The multi-domain solution is constructed from inside between 1 S and 10 S, where a lower value leads to an out, initially calculated within the SC module using increased JH (Cohen et al. 2014). For simplicity, we use the Alfv´enWave Solar Model (AWSoM, van der Holst a constant conductivity of 1 S to estimate an upper limit et al. 2014), whose standard boundary conditions are to the JH under the assumed stellar wind parameters. modified to the M-dwarf regime (and specifically for The IE provides an improved boundary conditions for Proxima) as described in Alvarado-G´omezet al. (2020). GM in the form of electric and velocity fields at the in- In particular, two surface magnetic field configurations ner boundary. We refer the reader to Cohen et al. 2020 —associated with minimum and maximum activity— for more details about the GM-IE coupling, and the JH are considered to drive individual AWSoM solutions. calculation. These have been extracted11 from a self-consistent fully- A combination of spherical (SC) and Cartesian convective dynamo simulation —adjusted to the stellar (IH/GM) grids is employed, which is further opti- mass, radius, and rotation period of Proxima (see Yadav mized using multiple realizations of adaptive mesh re- et al. 2016)— whose oscillatory regime yields a time- finement/coarsening, informed by magnetic field and scale comparable with the observed activity cycle in the particle density gradients. This was necessary to keep star (Sect.2). As shown in the top panels of Fig.1, the number of cell blocks tractable, given the very large we scale the average surface field strengths for activity IH box size (side length: 4500 RF) required to contain the complete orbit of Proxima c (a ' 2010.39 RF, e = 0.0; see Damasso et al. 2020, Benedict & McArthur 7 ˙ −14 −1 12 −1 Assuming M ' 2 × 10 M yr = 1.265 × 10 g s 2020b). In this way, the combined domain contains 8 Denoted as inner astrosphere in the stellar case. 9 The domain size is defined in units of planetary radii instead more than 24 million spatial blocks, with the smallest of stellar radii in this case. cell elements in the final mesh reaching 0.025 RF (SC), 10 A two-dimensional sphere set at an altitude of 120 km in the 4.394 RF (IH), and 0.3 Rp (GM). case of the Earth. 11 Rotations 508 (minimum) and 520 (maximum) from the Ya- dav et al. (2016) study are used for this purpose. 4 Alvarado-Gomez´ & Drake et al.

Figure 1. Simulated stellar wind environment for the Proxima Cen system. Multi-domain models for activity minimum (left) and maximum (right) are shown. The top panels contain the dynamo-generated surface field distributions (in G) used to drive the AWSoM solution within the innermost module (SC, middle panels). This domain contains the orbits of Proxima b (white solid) and the tentative innermost planet Proxima d (white dashed). The purple iso-surface corresponds to the Alfv´en surface of the stellar wind (MA = 1, see text for details). The steady-state solution is propagated from the coupling region

(105 − 110 RF) to the entire IH domain (4500 RF in each cartesian direction; bottom panels). This domain contains the orbit of Proxima c (yellow). Magenta and green iso-surfaces delimitate the slow (Ur . 750 km/s) and fast (Ur & 1500 km/s) wind 2 sectors, respectively. Color-coded is the wind dynamic pressure (Pdyn = ρ U ) normalized to the nominal Sun-Earth value (∼ 1.5 nPa), visualized on the equatorial plane of both domains. Selected magnetic field lines are shown in white. An Earth-like stellar environment for Proxima Centauri c 5

13 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pearth ' 1.5 nPa ), up to the orbital distance of Prox- Results from our numerical simulations of the Proxima ima c. system are presented in Figs.1 to4, where side-by-side To examine their expected orbital variations, Fig.2 visualizations for activity minimum and maximum are shows two-dimensional Mercator projections of Pdyn shown. As described below, good agreement is obtained constructed from a sphere with radius matching the with current observational constraints on Proxima’s stel- semi-major axis of Proxima c (∼ 1.44 au). We include 14 lar wind, as well as with previous modeling work by the orbital paths for two possible inclinations of the ◦ ◦ Garraffo et al. (2016) on the space weather conditions planet (0 and 15 ). During minimum, the largest value around Proxima b (Fig.1, middle panels). in Pdyn along the explored orbits is close to two times the Sun-Earth average. The conditions worsen slightly for activity maximum, with a stellar wind dynamic pressure 4.1. Stellar Wind Models reaching up to 4 Pearth. Despite the differences in surface field strength and For the considered inclinations, the orbital variability topology (Fig.1, top panels), the resulting steady- of Pdyn is rather small, being around 50% for activity state wind solutions are similar between both activ- minimum and close to a factor of 2 during maximum. ity states. This is a consequence of comparable large- This is better illustrated in the top panels of Fig.3, scale magnetic field components among both configu- showing the behaviour of Pdyn as a function of orbital rations, with the small-scale structure mostly control- phase in all cases. With a more inclined orbit, Proxima c ling the coronal thermodynamic conditions (see R´eville would be exposed to stellar wind sectors of substantially et al. 2015, Garraffo et al. 2015). The associated Alfv´en lower dynamic pressure, at the cost of enhanced variabil- Surface (AS)12 displays a characteristic two-lobe con- ity during each current sheet crossing (e.g., Alvarado- figuration (Fig.1, middle panels), with average sizes of G´omezet al. 2016, Garraffo et al. 2016).

28.1 RF and 46.5 RF for activity minimum and max- Interestingly, our Pdyn results for Proxima c are imum, respectively. The wind distribution is mainly comparable with expectations for Barnard Star b bipolar (see Fig.1, bottom panels), with a relatively (see Alvarado-G´omezet al. 2019b), which resides much fast component reaching up to ∼ 1500 km s−1 in the closer to its host star (a ' 0.4 au, e ' 0.32, Ribas (magnetic) pole-ward directions, and a slow wind sec- et al. 2018). At a considerable older age (∼ 10 Gyr), −1 tor (. 750 km s ) surrounding the astrospheric current the weaker magnetism of Barnard Star creates a slower sheet. The latter is roughly aligned with the equatorial and more rarefied stellar wind compared to Proxima. plane during minimum, gaining a small inclination angle This compensates the shorter orbital distance, leading ◦ (∼ 20 ) for activity maximum. to similar Pdyn conditions for both super-Earth planets. Computing the stellar wind mass loss rate for each The super-Alfv´enic stellar wind conditions along the magnetic configuration yields ∼ 0.3 M˙ (minimum) and orbit, combined with the assumption of a dipole plan- ˙ ∼ 0.9 M (maximum). These values appear close to cur- etary magnetic field (Bp), allow a broad estimate on rent upper limits from observations (see Sect.2). Note the associated day-size magnetosphere size (Rmp). This ˙ also that the factor of 3 difference in MF between ac- is done by considering magnetic and stellar wind dy- tivity states is comparable to the observed variation in namic pressure balance (e.g., Schield 1969, Gombosi M˙ over the solar cycle (by a factor of ∼ 2; Finley et al. 2004) leading to the relation: 2018). 1/6 2 ! Rmp Bp 4.2. Stellar Wind Environment of Proxima c = . (1) Rp 8πPdyn Having established that our simulations provide a robust description of Proxima’s stellar wind, we now proceed Assigning an Earth-like dipole magnetic field Bp = 0.3 G to assess the expected conditions for planet c. For each to Proxima c, this calculation yields a magnetosphere activity state, the bottom panels of Fig.1 display the re- size ranging between ∼ 6 − 8 Rp among both activity 2 sulting stellar wind dynamic pressure, Pdyn = ρ U (nor- states (see Fig.3, bottom panels). These values appear malized to the average value experienced by the Earth, close to the standard size of the day-side Earth’s mag-

12 Defined by the locations in which the stellar wind speed 13 https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind 14 matches√ the local Alfv´enspeed (i.e., an Alfv´enicMach number Measured with respect to the equatorial plane and not with MA = U 4πρ/B = 1, where U, ρ and B, correspond to the wind respect to the line-of-sight (which is the value reported in Kervella speed, density and magnetic field values, respectively). et al. 2020 and Benedict & McArthur 2020b). 6 Alvarado-Gomez´ & Drake et al.

Figure 2. Two-dimensional Mercator projection of the normalized stellar wind dynamic pressure (Pdyn), extracted from a ◦ ◦ sphere at the distance of Proxima c (∼ 1.44 au ' 2010.39 RF). Black and purple dotted lines indicate the path for 0 and 15 orbital inclinations, respectively. Conditions for activity minimum (left) and maximum (right) are shown.

Activity Minimum Activity Maximum 5.0 5.0 Wind Dynamic Pressure i=00 i=15 ] 4.0 ] 4.0 h h t t r r a a e 3.0 e 3.0 P P [ [

n 2.0 n 2.0 y y d d P P 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 Magnetosphere Size ] ] t 7.5 t 7.5 e e n n a a l l p p

R 7.0 R 7.0 [ [

p p

m 6.5 m 6.5 R R Bp = 0.3 G 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Orbital Phase Orbital Phase

Figure 3. Variation of the normalized wind dynamic pressure (Pdyn, top) and the magnetosphere size (Rmp, bottom) along possible orbits of Proxima c. Black and purple lines show the behavior for orbital inclinations of 0◦ and 15◦, respectively (see Fig.2). Conditions for both stellar activity states are included (minimum: left, maximum: right). An Earth-like planetary dipole magnetic field (Bp = 0.3 G) is assumed in all cases. netosphere (∼ 10 Rearth), which can be compressed by around Proxima c (see Sect.3). We evaluate the stellar up to ∼ 35% during strong solar space weather events wind properties along the considered orbits of Proxima c (see Pulkkinen 2007, Lugaz et al. 2015). Figure3 also in order to obtain nominal conditions —namely density, shows the inverse relation between the dynamic pressure speed, magnetic field strength, and temperature— in and the magnetosphere size, with crossings of the cur- each activity state (see Table1). These representative rent sheet as coinciding peaks and dips in Pdyn and Rmp, stellar wind parameters are used to drive the GM and 1/3 respectively. As can be seen from Eq.1, Rmp ∝ Bp , IE modules, whose results are presented in Fig.4. The so that larger magnetosphere sizes are expected for visualizations include equatorial and meridional projec- stronger planetary magnetic field values. tions of Pdyn, clearly showing the development of a bow To complement the analytic description, our multi- shock towards the star (positive x-axis). As expected, domain simulation also includes a three-dimensional the harsher stellar wind conditions during maximum model of a possible magnetosphere and ionosphere generate higher compression of the entire magnetosphere An Earth-like stellar environment for Proxima Centauri c 7

Table 1. Representative stellar wind parameters around Proxima c and resulting properties from the GM+IE modules.

Incident Stellar Wind Global Magnetosphere (GM+IE) Case −3 4 −1 min max n [cm ] T [× 10 K] U [km s ] B [nT] Rmp [Rp] Pmp [Pearth] JH [JH earth]

Minimum 1.0 5.0 (−1100, 0, 0) (0, 0, −0.5) 8.2 1.3 0.07 Maximum 10.0 10.0 (−600, 0, 0) (0, 0, −2.0) 6.2 2.4 0.16

Figure 4. Results from the GM+IE model driven by stellar wind parameters representative of both activity states (mini- mum: left, maximum: right; see Table1), extracted from the analyzed orbits of Proxima c within the IH module (Figs.1 and2). The star is located in the positive x direction and the central sphere (green) corresponds to the inner boundary of the domain (R = 2 Rp). Equatorial and meridional projections of the normalized wind dynamic pressure are included (Pdyn, burgundy). Randomly seeded velocity streamlines, color coded by plasma number density (n, rainbow), are used as proxy for particle trajectories inside the magnetosphere. Selected stellar wind (black) and planetary (white) magnetic field lines are shown. compared to activity minimum. In combination with currents and the particle influx responsible for the JH. the polarity and strength of the interplanetary magnetic Previous studies of the TRAPPIST-1 planets (Cohen field, this will influence the fraction of particles pene- et al. 2018) and TOI-700 d (Cohen et al. 2020) indicate trating and precipitating to the ionosphere (illustrated much higher values of JH, that could potentially con- in Fig.4 by density-colored velocity streamlines). A tribute to continuous heating of the upper atmosphere summary of the resulting values from the GM module of these planets. However, such heating is likely negligi- is presented in Table1. Note that the smallest magne- ble for Proxima c. tosphere standoff distance from GM is fairly consistent with the analytic formulation given by Eq.1 (see also 4.3. Extreme Conditions for Proxima d Fig.3, lower panels). To complete this study, we examine the expected space Following Cohen et al. (2020), we calculate the as- environment around the planet candidate Proxima d. As sociated Joule heating in the upper atmosphere using mentioned in Sect.2, its ∼ 40.4 R orbit would place it the IE model. We find that the Joule Heating is very F closer than Proxima b (a ' 67.8 R ), exposing it to low for both activity states —about ∼ 10% of the heat- F even more extreme conditions than the habitable zone ing obtained at Earth during ambient solar wind con- planet. This includes P values about 5 times larger ditions (JH ' 150 GW; see Table1). The reason dyn earth than expectations for Proxima b15 (Garraffo et al. 2016), for this is that while Pdyn is higher for Proxima c than for the Earth, the average solar wind conditions carry a stronger magnetic field (particularly in the B compo- 15 z Comparing with the hBiS = 600 G case from Garraffo et al. nent), whose variations ultimately drive the field aligned (2016). 8 Alvarado-Gomez´ & Drake et al. corresponding to 3–4 orders of magnitude larger than diminished interplanetary magnetic field at the distance what the present day Earth experiences (see Fig.1, mid- of the planet. Whether or not Proxima Cen c currently dle panels). While both exoplanets would face similar has an atmosphere would depend on several factors, intra-orbital variations in Pdyn (by a factor of ∼ 10), including its formation channel and evolutionary path. they will occur approximately twice as fast in Proxima d Nevertheless, at face value the resulting conditions from compared to b (∼ 5.2 d versus ∼ 11.2 d orbital periods). our models do not appear to be unduly corrosive and

Furthermore, the 46.5 RF average size of the AS during should be favorable for the persistence of any extant maximum —larger than the orbital separation— implies atmosphere, supporting the prospect of fruitful future that Proxima d would cross (or be completely in) sub- observing campaigns. Alfv´enicstellar wind sectors at times of high-activity Finally, we also examined the resulting space environ- in the star. Leaving aside the increased rate of high- ment around the planet candidate Proxima d, which is energy transients and their expected strong coronal re- expected to orbit at only 0.029 au. Not surprisingly, sponse on Proxima (see Alvarado-G´omezet al. 2019a), this exoplanet would experience extreme conditions, in- the sub-Alfv´enicconditions pose an even greater chal- cluding very large dynamic pressures (103 − 104 times lenge for the retention of any atmosphere around the the average value around the Earth) with sub-orbital planet (e.g. analogous to the case of the TRAPPIST-1 variability reaching factors of 10, and even the possibil- system; Garraffo et al. 2017, Cohen et al. 2018). ity of sub-Alfv´enicconditions for extended periods of time. A grim space weather forecast is then expected 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS for this exoplanet candidate. As the closest planetary system to Earth, Proxima Cen- tauri and its circumstellar properties are of great impor- tance for exoplanet and habitability studies. To charac- terize the expected conditions of the recently discovered We would like to thank the referee for constructive feed- Proxima c, we have constructed the most comprehensive back. Support for Program number HST-GO-15326 was numerical simulation of the space environment in this provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Tele- system to date. This includes coupled models for the scope Science Institute, which is operated by the Asso- stellar corona and inner astrosphere —where the com- ciation of Universities for Research in Astronomy, In- plete ∼ 1.44 au orbit of the planet is enclosed— driven corporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. JJD by realistic surface magnetic field configurations repre- was funded by NASA contract NAS8-03060 to the CXC sentative of the minimum and maximum activity states and thanks the Director, Belinda Wilkes, for continu- of Proxima. ing advice and support. OC was supported by NASA Our results indicate that Proxima c experiences NExSS grant NNX15AE05G. KP acknowledges funding Earth-like conditions —in terms of the dynamic pres- from the German Leibniz Gemeinschaft under project sure exerted by the stellar wind— along its ∼ 5.3 yr number P67-2018. This work used SWMF/BATSRUS orbit, with minor variability (by a factor of ∼ 2) due to tools developed at The University of Michigan Center the activity cycle of the star. To investigate the relative for Space Environment Modeling. Simulations were per- effect of such conditions on the energy dissipation in formed on NASA’s Pleiades cluster under award SMD- the upper atmosphere (Joule heating), we also simu- 17-1330, provided by the NASA High-End Computing lated a possible magnetosphere and ionosphere around Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing the planet. We found that even with a relatively weak Division at Ames Research Center. planetary dipole field (0.3 G), the associated Joule heat- Facilities: Pleiades ing of the upper atmosphere is negligible for Proxima c (∼ 10% of the nominal value on the Earth), due to a Software: SWMF (Gombosi et al. 2018)

REFERENCES

Alvarado-G´omez,J. D., Drake, J. J., Moschou, S. P., et al. Alvarado-G´omez,J. D., Drake, J. J., Fraschetti, F., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 884, L13 2020, ApJ, 895, 47 Alvarado-G´omez,J. D., Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., et al. Anglada-Escud´e,G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, 2019b, ApJL, 875, L12 Nature, 536, 437 Alvarado-G´omez,J. D., Hussain, G. A. J., Cohen, O., et al. Benedict, G. F., & McArthur, B. E. 2020a, Research Notes 2016, A&A, 594, A95 of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 46 An Earth-like stellar environment for Proxima Centauri c 9

—. 2020b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Moschou, S.-P., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., et al. 2019, ApJ, Society, 4, 86 877, 105 Cohen, O., Drake, J. J., Glocer, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 57 Parkin, K. L. G. 2018, Acta Astronautica, 152, 370 Cohen, O., Garraffo, C., Moschou, S.-P., et al. 2020, ApJ, Pulkkinen, T. 2007, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 4, 1 897, 101 Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2008, A&A, 489, L45 Cohen, O., Glocer, A., Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Bell, R´eville,V., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., & J. M. 2018, ApJL, 856, L11 Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116 Damasso, M., Del Sordo, F., Anglada-Escud´e,G., et al. Ribas, I., Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaax7467 A111 Davenport, J. R. A., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. Ribas, I., Tuomi, M., Reiners, A., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 2019, ApJ, 871, 241 365 Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y., & Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, Schield, M. A. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 1275 837, L26 S´egransan,D., Kervella, P., Forveille, T., & Queloz, D. Finley, A. J., Matt, S. P., & See, V. 2018, ApJ, 864, 125 2003, A&A, 397, L5 Fuhrmeister, B., Lalitha, S., Poppenhaeger, K., et al. 2011, Shields, A. L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2016, PhR, A&A, 534, A133 663, 1 Garcia-Sage, K., Glocer, A., Drake, J. J., Gronoff, G., & Su´arezMascare˜no,A., Faria, J. P., Figueira, P., et al. 2020, Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, 844, L13 A&A, 639, A77 Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2015, ApJL, 807, L6 —. 2016, ApJL, 833, L4 T´oth,G., van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., et al. 2012, Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Alvarado-G´omez, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 870 J. D., & Moschou, S. P. 2017, ApJL, 843, L33 Turbet, M., Leconte, J., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, Gombosi, T. I. 2004, Physics of the Space Environment A112 Gombosi, T. I., van der Holst, B., Manchester, W. B., & van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, Sokolov, I. V. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 4 ApJ, 782, 81 Gratton, R., Zurlo, A., Le Coroller, H., et al. 2020, A&A, Vida, K., Ol´ah,K., K˝ov´ari,Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 160 638, A120 Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al. 2014, Heller, R., Hippke, M., & Kervella, P. 2017, AJ, 154, 115 MNRAS, 438, 1162 Jenkins, J. S., Harrington, J., Challener, R. C., et al. 2019, Wargelin, B. J., & Drake, J. J. 2002, ApJ, 578, 503 MNRAS, 487, 268 Wargelin, B. J., Saar, S. H., Pojma´nski,G., Drake, J. J., & Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. 2012, PASP, 124, 323 Kashyap, V. L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3281 Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Schneider, J. 2020, A&A, 635, Wood, B. E., Linsky, J. L., M¨uller,H.-R., & Zank, G. P. L14 2001, ApJL, 547, L49 Kiraga, M., & Stepien, K. 2007, AcA, 57, 149 Wood, B. E., M¨uller,H.-R., Zank, G. P., Linsky, J. L., & Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. Redfield, S. 2005, ApJL, 628, L143 2014, ApJL, 787, L29 Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48 ApJ, 770, 82 Yadav, R. K., Christensen, U. R., Wolk, S. J., & Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Huang, C.-L., & Spence, H. E. Poppenhaeger, K. 2016, ApJL, 833, L28 2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 4694