Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Solar wind entry into Mercury's magnetosphere: Simulation results for the second swingby of BepiColombo

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A global hybrid simulation of BepiColombo's second Mercury swingby finds solar wind protons entering the magnetosphere with energies from a few eV to about 10 keV, and maps the plasma regions crossed by the spacecraft.

desk verdict Useful trajectory-spectrum tool for Mercury hybrid simulations; fix the abstract's misplaced 10 keV and the qualitative/quantitative contradiction before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05363 v1 pith:7C6LLBIP submitted 2025-01-09 physics.space-ph physics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph

Daniel Teubenbacher , Willi Exner , Moritz Feyerabend , Yasuhito Narita , Daniel Schmid , Gunter Laky , Simon Toepfer , Uwe Motschmann
show 2 more authors
Philippe-A. Bourdin Horia Comisel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phphysics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords Mercury'smagnetospherehybridplasmasimulationsolarwindentryBepiColomboswingby2protonenergyspectrummagnetopausebowshockforeshock
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper uses a global 3D hybrid simulation of Mercury's magnetosphere, initialized with solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field conditions from BepiColombo's second swingby (MSB2), to predict what the spacecraft should have measured in proton energies along its trajectory. Its central claim is that solar wind protons do enter the magnetosphere, reaching low altitudes near closest approach, and that their energies vary by three orders of magnitude, from a few electron volts up to about 10 keV near the dawnside tail current sheet. The simulated energy spectrum also lets the authors identify which magnetospheric regions the spacecraft crossed, including the magnetosheath, magnetopause, tail lobes, tail current sheet, and a foreshock region, and it shows a thicker magnetosheath on the dusk side than on the dawn side. This gives a testable, physics-based template for interpreting the actual BepiColombo particle measurements and for forecasting what upcoming swingbys should see.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the AIKEF global hybrid simulation, in which protons are followed as kinetic particles and electrons act as a massless, charge-neutralizing fluid; magnetic reconnection is handled self-consistently through anomalous resistivity, and Mercury's surface absorbs impacting particles. The trajectory-analysis tool built on top is the second essential piece: at each point along the MSB2 path, all simulated protons within a sphere of radius 5 ion inertial lengths (about 200 km) are collected and binned into a 60-bin logarithmic energy histogram from 1 eV to 20 keV, giving an omnidirectional energy spectrum with more than 1000 particles per point. This extraction method connects the global simulation to the spacecraft's actual path and lets the authors identify magnetospheric regions from distinct particle populations in the spectrum.

What would settle it

Compare the model's predicted proton energy spectrum and boundary-crossing times along the MSB2 trajectory with BepiColombo's ion and magnetic field measurements from 23 June 2022; a mismatch in the times of the inbound or outbound magnetopause or bow shock crossings, or the absence of the predicted roughly 10 keV dawnside tail population, would show that the steady-state snapshot does not represent the actual flyby.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the AIKEF global hybrid code, with ions treated kinetically and electrons as a massless fluid, the authors built a quasi-steady-state model of Mercury's magnetosphere from BepiColombo's outbound IMF measurements and MESSENGER-average solar wind parameters. They then extracted all simulated protons within about 200 km (5 solar-wind ion inertial lengths) of each point on the MSB2 trajectory and binned their velocities into an omnidirectional energy spectrum. The spectrum shows solar wind protons throughout the magnetosphere: a few eV near closest approach on the dawnside, roughly 50 eV in the tail lobes, 20 to 200 eV while grazing the tail current sheet, energies up to 10 keV near the dawnside flanks of the tilted current sheet, and about 4 keV in the pre-terminator dawnside magnetosheath. The authors use the spectrum together with density and current-density slices to assign boundary crossings along the flyby: inbound magnetopause, tail-current-sheet graze, outbound magnetopause, and outbound bow shock, plus a field-aligned ion beam in the foreshock. They conclude that solar wind entry is the main source of the ions and that the simulation reproduces the empirical stand-off distances, with the magnetopause at 1.45 RM and the bow shock at 1.85 RM at the subsolar point, while revealing a dawn-dusk asymmetry in magnetosheath thickness caused by the oblique IMF.

Load-bearing premise

The whole flyby comparison rests on treating one quasi-steady snapshot of the simulation as a stand-in for the actual one-to-two-hour encounter, even though Mercury's magnetosphere can reconfigure on a roughly two-minute timescale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BepiColombo's particle instruments can be checked directly against the predicted spectrum; matching boundary crossings would validate the model and the inferred solar wind entry.
  • The predicted 10 keV population near the dawnside tail current sheet gives a concrete signature of reconnection-accelerated solar wind protons that the spacecraft should have encountered after closest approach.
  • The dawn-dusk asymmetry in bow shock and magnetosheath thickness implies that inbound and outbound crossings during MSB2 should exhibit different shock strengths and foreshock activity, which the magnetometer data can test.
  • The same snapshot-extraction method can be replayed along the trajectories of the remaining BepiColombo swingbys to produce quick forecast spectra for operations and measurement planning.
  • If the few-eV population near closest approach is real, it implies the solar wind supplies low-energy ions in the near-surface magnetosphere, a region the spacecraft sampled for the first time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, the same extraction method applied to a time series of snapshots would directly test whether the two-minute Dungey cycle blurs the predicted boundary times along a one-to-two-hour flyby.
  • Going beyond the paper, the model's omission of planetary ions means the few-eV part of the spectrum is probably incomplete; including exospheric ions such as Na+ could change the closest-approach interpretation.
  • Going beyond the paper, the dawn-dusk asymmetry should rotate with the IMF clock angle, so the same simulation setup could be run at different upstream conditions to produce a forecast library for the remaining swingbys.
  • Going beyond the paper, confirmation of the foreshock ion beam in outbound data would make Mercury a natural small-scale laboratory for quasi-parallel shock acceleration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the global 3D hybrid code AIKEF to simulate the interaction of the solar wind with Mercury's magnetosphere under conditions representative of BepiColombo's second Mercury swingby (MSB2). Upstream solar wind parameters are taken from MESSENGER average values, and the IMF direction is derived from Mio MGF measurements; no free parameters are fitted to the target results. The authors compute proton energy spectra along the MSB2 trajectory by extracting particles within a 5 ion-inertial-length cloud from a single quasi-steady simulation snapshot at 760 s. They report a dawn-dusk magnetosheath thickness asymmetry, magnetopause and bow shock stand-off distances of R_MP = 1.45 R_M and R_BS = 1.85 R_M, and solar wind protons penetrating into the magnetosphere with energies ranging from a few eV near closest approach to about 6-10 keV near the dawnside tail current sheet and about 4 keV in the dayside magnetosheath. They also identify boundary crossings and region-specific particle populations along the trajectory, and discuss implications for interpreting BepiColombo swingby data.

Significance. If the results are taken as a faithful representation of the MSB2 encounter, the paper provides a useful method for extracting trajectory-aligned ion energy spectra from hybrid simulations and gives concrete predictions for the plasma regions crossed during MSB2. The study is strengthened by the absence of fitted parameters: inputs come from independent measurements (MESSENGER averages, Mio MGF), and outputs are compared with empirical models from other authors. The spectrum-extraction approach is flexible and reusable for future swingbys. However, the significance is substantially qualified by the single-snapshot assumption; because the real flyby lasted 1-2 hours and Mercury's Dungey cycle is about 2 minutes, the trajectory-specific predictions are not yet verified as quantitative forecasts. The paper also contains internal inconsistencies between the abstract, the results section, and the conclusions about where the 10 keV population is located and about whether the results are qualitative or quantitative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.1, 3.2, and 4] The single-snapshot assumption is load-bearing and is not adequately addressed. Section 2.1 states that the simulation is run for about 760 s to reach a quasi-steady state, and Section 3.2 explains that the spectrum in Fig. 3 is obtained by mapping the spatial positions of the MSB2 trajectory through this one quasi-stationary state. Section 4 then concedes that Mercury's Dungey cycle is about 2 min and that the ~1-2 h flyby 'might allow reconfigurations that potentially affect boundary positions and orientations.' Because the labeled crossings (1)-(5) in Fig. 3 and the energies assigned to each region (few eV in the magnetosphere, ~6-10 keV near the dawnside tail current sheet, ~4 keV in the dayside magnetosheath) are trajectory-specific, they are not guaranteed to represent what BepiColombo actually encountered during MSB2. The authors should either add a time-dependent treatment or explicitly demote all trajectory-specific timings and energy assignments to illustrative products of a single quasi-steady configuration.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract's statement that energies reach 'up to 10 keV in the magnetosheath' contradicts the body of the paper. Section 3.2 locates the ~6-10 keV population 'near the (dawnside) flanks of the tilted tail current sheet' and states that the dayside magnetosheath energy ranges 'from 10 eV up to about 4 keV'; Section 4 likewise summarizes 'up to about 4 keV in the magnetosheath region on the pre-terminator dawnside.' The abstract must be corrected to match the body, or the body must be revised if the abstract was intended.
  3. [Sections 3.2 and 4] The paper gives contradictory epistemic status to its own results. Section 3.2 states that 'our simulation results are more appropriately viewed as a qualitative representation of the real flyby,' whereas Section 4 states that 'our results should be regarded as a quantitative representation, especially if compared to particle measurements during MSB2.' Since the abstract and conclusions promise quantitative estimates of boundary crossings and energies along the trajectory, this contradiction is central. The authors should choose one characterization, justify it, and adjust the title, abstract, and conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The horizontal dashed line in Fig. 3 is called the 'solar wind initialization temperature of 1 keV,' but 1 keV is approximately the bulk kinetic energy of a 400 km/s proton, while Table 1 lists the ion temperature as 17 eV. Please use 'energy' rather than 'temperature' in this description.
  2. [Figure 3] The caption labels v_x < 0 as 'sunward'; since the MASO X-axis is anti-sunward this is correct, but the coordinate convention should be stated in the caption for readers not familiar with MASO.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'The lowest number densities of > 0.01 cm^-3' is ambiguous; a threshold or a range should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'magnetopshere' (Sections 2.1 and 4), 'di fference' (Section 3.1), and 'Insitute' (Acknowledgements); please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: simulation inputs are independent measurements and outputs are checked against external empirical models.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The AIKEF hybrid simulation is initialized with upstream parameters taken from independent observations (four years of MESSENGER averages for solar wind density, velocity, temperature, and IMF magnitude; Mio/MGF for the IMF direction during MSB2) and with a planetary field from Anderson et al. (2012). No parameter is fitted to the quantities the paper later presents as results: the stand-off distances R_MP = 1.45 R_M and R_BS = 1.85 R_M are compared with, not regressed to, the empirical Slavin/Winslow/Korth models, and the proton energy spectra are extracted from the simulation snapshot rather than matched to BepiColombo measurements. The only input-linked spectral feature is the peak near 1 keV, which the paper itself identifies as the solar wind input bulk energy ('The particle energy peaks are just under 1 keV, which equates to the solar wind input energy'); this is an upstream boundary condition, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper also explicitly flags its main validity limitation instead of hiding it: Section 4 states 'we utilized a steady state snapshot ... the dynamics of the system are not covered' and that the one-to-two hour flyby 'might allow reconfigurations that potentially affect boundary positions and orientations.' That caveat reduces confidence in trajectory-timed region identification but is not circularity. Self-citations to the AIKEF code (Muller et al. 2011) and to prior Mercury hybrid simulations (Exner et al. 2018, 2020) are normal method references and are not load-bearing in a way that forces the results. Internal inconsistencies, such as the abstract's 'up to 10 keV in the magnetosheath' versus Section 3.2 placing the 10 keV population near the dawnside tail current sheet and about 4 keV in the magnetosheath, are correctness issues rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation is an application of an established hybrid code (AIKEF) with inputs taken from prior measurements. No new particles or forces are postulated. The main epistemic burden falls on the representativeness of the upstream parameters and the quasi-steady state assumption.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Upstream solar wind parameters from four years of MESSENGER averages (density 40 cm^-3, velocity 400 km/s, temperature 17 eV, IMF magnitude 24.2 nT) are representative of conditions during MSB2.
    These values, cited to Winslow et al. (2013), set the boundary conditions for the simulation and directly determine the magnetopause and bow shock stand-off distances and the proton energy profile.
  • domain assumption The IMF direction measured by Mio MGF during the outbound phase (components -0.79, 0.59, 0.06) is the relevant upstream IMF for the whole magnetosphere interaction.
    The IMF orientation controls the dawn-dusk asymmetry and foreshock structure claimed in the paper; using a single measured direction assumes it was stable.
  • ad hoc to paper A single quasi-steady state snapshot after 760 s of simulation time represents the magnetosphere along the MSB2 trajectory over the one-to-two hour flyby.
    The authors explicitly state the dynamics are not covered and that reconfigurations may affect boundary positions, yet the spectra and boundary crossings are presented as representative of the flyby.
  • domain assumption Simulating only solar wind protons, with Mercury's surface as a perfect absorber and no exospheric ions, is sufficient to capture the entry and energy profile of solar wind particles.
    The paper excludes Na+ and other planetary ions, which would populate the low-energy magnetosphere and modify the spectra at energies below the solar wind energy.
  • domain assumption Collecting particles within a constant radius of 5 solar-wind ion inertial lengths (~200 km) at each trajectory point yields an omnidirectional spectrum representative of what the spacecraft particles instruments would observe.
    The authors chose the radius to get N > 1000 particles per point, but this blurs boundaries and may not match the spacecraft's actual field of view or time-of-flight response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar wind entry into Mercury's magnetosphere: Simulation results for the second swingby of BepiColombo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7C6LLBIP

@misc{pith2026250105363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar wind entry into Mercury's magnetosphere: Simulation results for the second swingby of BepiColombo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7C6LLBIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05363}
}
read the original abstract

Context. We use a global 3D hybrid plasma model to investigate the interaction between Mercury's magnetosphere and the solar wind for the second BepiColombo swingby, evaluate magnetospheric regions, and study the typical energy profile of protons. Aims. The objective of this study is to gain a better understanding of solar wind entry and analyze simulated plasma data along a trajectory using BepiColombo swingby 2 conditions, with the goal of enhancing our comprehension of measurement data and potentially providing forecasts for future swingbys. Methods. To model Mercury's plasma environment, we used the hybrid code AIKEF and developed a method to extract the particle (ion) data in order to compute the proton energy spectrum along the trajectory of BepiColombo during its second Mercury swingby on June 23, 2022. We evaluate magnetopause and bow shock stand-off distances under average upstream solar wind conditions with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) condition derived from the BepiColombo magnetic field measurements during the second Mercury swingby. Results. We found that the magnetosheath on the quasi-perpendicular (dusk) side of the bow shock is thicker than that on the quasi-parallel (dawn) side, where a foreshock is formed. Multiple plasma populations can be extracted from our modeled energy spectra that assist in identifying magnetospheric regions. We observed protons of solar wind origin entering Mercury's magnetosphere. Their energies range from a few electron volts in the magnetosphere up to 10 keV in the magnetosheath.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the AIKEF simulation box. In the top-right cor￾ner, there is an exemplary unrefined block that is further divided into cells that define the grid resolution (size ratios: block to simulation box = cell to block). The black arrows denote the difference between the MASO and MSM coordinate system, which is shifted 0.2 RM in the +Z direction. The subsolar point is defined to be on the MSM X-axis; see modelle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AIKEF MSB2 simulation overview. Panels a and b show modeled plasma density ni and electric current density |J| in the XY (equatorial) plane (MASO). Panels c and d illustrate the same parameters but in the XZ (meridonial) plane. The black thin lines in panels a and c represent the bulk flow velocity, whereas the black thin lines in b and d indicate magnetic field lines. The red thick lines with a white outline corres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model results for the proton energy spectrum along BepiColombo Mercury swingby 2 trajectory. Panel a shows all particles, and panel b only shows particles moving in a sunward (vx < 0) direction. The white horizontal dashed line represents the solar wind energy input parameter, and CA denotes the closest approach. The numbers 1-5 indicate magnetopsheric region or boundary crossings: (1) inbound magnetopause crossing,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Fatemi, S., et al

    Aizawa, S., Griton, L. S., Fatemi, S., et al. 2021, Planetary and Space Science, 198, 105176, doi:10.1016/j.pss.2021.105176

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Bobrovnikov, S., Slavin, J., & Saran- tos, M

    Alexeev, I., Belenkaya, E., Yu. Bobrovnikov, S., Slavin, J., & Saran- tos, M. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, doi:10.1029/2008JA013368

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013368 2008

  3. [3]

    J., Acuña, M

    Anderson, B. J., Acuña, M. H., Korth, H., et al. 2008, Science, 321, 82, doi:10.1126/science.1159081

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1159081 2008

  4. [4]

    J., Johnson, C

    Anderson, B. J., Johnson, C. L., Korth, H., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 117, doi:10.1029/2012JE004159

    work page doi:10.1029/2012je004159 2012

  5. [5]

    N., Poh, G., Odstrcil, D., et al

    Baker, D. N., Poh, G., Odstrcil, D., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 45, doi:10.1029/2012JA018064

    work page doi:10.1029/2012ja018064 2013

  6. [6]

    N., Pulkkinen, T

    Baker, D. N., Pulkkinen, T. I., Angelopoulos, V ., Baumjohann, W., & McPher- ron, R. L. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 12975, doi:10.1029/95JA03753

    doi:10.1029/95ja03753 1996

  7. [7]

    2020, Space Sci

    Baumjohann, W., Matsuoka, A., Narita, Y ., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 125, doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00754-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00754-y 2020

  8. [8]

    2010, Planetary and Space Science, 58, 2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.020

    Benkhoff, J., van Casteren, J., Hayakawa, H., et al. 2010, Planetary and Space Science, 58, 2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.020

    doi:10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.020 2010

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    A., Merkel, A

    Cassidy, T. A., Merkel, A. W., Burger, M. H., et al. 2015, Icarus, 248, 547 , doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.037

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    1987, Icarus, 71, 430, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(87)90038-8

    Cheng, A., Johnson, R., Krimigis, S., & Lanzerotti, L. 1987, Icarus, 71, 430, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(87)90038-8

    1987 doi

  3. [11]

    2012, in High Performance Visualization–Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight, 357–372

    Childs, H., Brugger, E., Whitlock, B., et al. 2012, in High Performance Visualization–Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight, 357–372

    2012

  4. [12]

    C., Grimald, S., Leblanc, F., et al

    Delcourt, D. C., Grimald, S., Leblanc, F., et al. 2003, Annales Geophysicae, 21, 1723, doi:10.5194/angeo-21-1723-2003

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Nykyri, K., Osmane, A., & Pulkkinen, T

    Dimmock, A. P., Nykyri, K., Osmane, A., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 196, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.039

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Dunne, J. A. & Burgess, E. 1978, National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion SP, 424

    1978

  7. [15]

    2018, Planetary and Space Science, 153, 89, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.12.016

    Exner, W., Heyner, D., Liuzzo, L., et al. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 153, 89, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.12.016

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, Journal of Geophys- ical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27691, doi:10.1029/2019JA027691

    Exner, W., Simon, S., Heyner, D., & Motschmann, U. 2020, Journal of Geophys- ical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27691, doi:10.1029/2019JA027691

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, A&A, 614, A132, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832764

    Fatemi, S., Poirier, N., Holmström, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A132, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832764

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series, 837, 012017, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/837/1/012017

    Fatemi, S., Poppe, A., Delory, G., & Farrell, W. 2017, Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series, 837, 012017, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/837/1/012017

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    R., & Barabash, S

    Fatemi, S., Poppe, A. R., & Barabash, S. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027706

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    & Wurz, P

    Gamborino, D. & Wurz, P. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 159, 97 , doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2018.04.021

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Y ., Liemohn, M

    Ganushkina, N. Y ., Liemohn, M. W., Dubyagin, S., et al. 2015, Annales Geo- physicae, 33, 1369, doi:10.5194/angeo-33-1369-2015

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Slavin, J

    Gershman, D. J., Slavin, J. A., Raines, J. M., et al. 2013, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 7181, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019244 Herˇcík, D., Trávní ˇcek, P. M., Johnson, J. R., Kim, E.-H., & Hellinger, P. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research:...

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Imber, S

    James, M. K., Imber, S. M., Bunce, E. J., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7907, doi:10.1002/2017JA024435

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Jarvinen, R., Alho, M., Kallio, E., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4147, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3257

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Gombosi, T

    Jia, X., Slavin, J. A., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 120, 4763, doi:10.1002/2015JA021143

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Poh, G., et al

    Jia, X., Slavin, J. A., Poh, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 229, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026166

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Kivelson, M

    Jia, X., Walker, R. J., Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., & Linker, J. A. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A09209, doi:10.1029/2009JA014375

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Anderson, B. J. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 10, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074699

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Johnson, C

    Korth, H., Tsyganenko, N. A., Johnson, C. L., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4503, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021022

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 1, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcf

    Lu, Q., Guo, J., Lu, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 1, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcf

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2005, Space Science Reviews, 117, 397, doi:10.1007/s11214-005-3593-z Müller, J., Simon, S., Motschmann, U., et al

    Milillo, A., Wurz, P., Orsini, S., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 117, 397, doi:10.1007/s11214-005-3593-z Müller, J., Simon, S., Motschmann, U., et al. 2011, Computer Physics Commu- nications, 182, 946, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.12.033 Müller, J., Simon, S., Wang, Y .-C., et...

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 2708, doi:10.1029/JA080i019p02708

    Ness, N., Behannon, K., Lepping, R., & Whang, Y . 1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 2708, doi:10.1029/JA080i019p02708

    1975 doi

  25. [33]

    & Rankin, R

    Paral, J. & Rankin, R. 2013, Nature Communications, 4, 1645, doi:10.1038/ncomms2676

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Rankin, R., & Schriver, D

    Paral, J., Trávní ˇcek, P. M., Rankin, R., & Schriver, D. 2010, Geophysical Re- search Letters, 37, doi:10.1029/2010GL044413

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    & Morgan, T

    Potter, A. & Morgan, T. 1985, Science, 229, 651, doi:10.1126/science.229.4714.651

    1985 doi

  28. [36]

    1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 14787, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/98JA00014

    Raeder, J., Berchem, J., & Ashour-Abdalla, M. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 14787, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/98JA00014

    1998 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Dewey, R

    Raines, J. M., Dewey, R. M., Staudacher, N. M., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysi- cal Research: Space Physics, 127, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030397

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Slavin, J., Bowers, C., & Weber, T

    Romanelli, N., DiBraccio, G. A., Slavin, J., Bowers, C., & Weber, T. 2022, Geo- phys. Res. Lett., 49, doi:10.1029/2022GL101643

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 9497, doi:10.1029/97JA00196

    Shue, J.-H., Chao, J., Fu, H., et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 9497, doi:10.1029/97JA00196

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    & Christopher, L

    Siscoe, G. & Christopher, L. 1975, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2, 158, doi:10.1029/GL002i004p00158

    1975 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Acuña, M

    Slavin, J. A., Acuña, M. H., Anderson, B. J., et al. 2009, Science, 324, 606, doi:10.1126/science.1172011

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Baker, D

    Slavin, J. A., Baker, D. N., Gershman, D. J., et al. 2018, in Mercury. The View after MESSENGER, ed. S. C. Solomon, L. R. Nittler, & B. J. Anderson, 461– 496, doi:10.1017/9781316650684.018

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Slavin, J. A. & Holzer, R. E. 1979, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 84, 2076, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/JA084iA05p02076

    1979 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Imber, S

    Slavin, J. A., Imber, S. M., & Raines, J. M. 2021, Magnetospheres in the solar system, 535, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119815624.ch34

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Zuber, M

    Smith, D. E., Zuber, M. T., Phillips, R. J., et al. 2012, Science, 336, 214, doi:10.1126/science.1218809

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    C., McNutt, R

    Solomon, S. C., McNutt, R. L., Gold, R. E., & Domingue, D. L. 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 131, 3, doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9247-6

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Slavin, J

    Sundberg, T., Boardsen, S. A., Slavin, J. A., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 6457, doi:10.1002/jgra.50602 Trávníˇcek, P., Hellinger, P., & Schriver, D. 2007, Geophysical research letters, 34, doi:10.1029/2006GL028518 Trávníˇcek, P. M., Hellin...

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SMP, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000219

    Tsyganenko, N. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SMP, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000219

    2002 doi

  41. [49]

    & Omidi, N

    Winske, D. & Omidi, N. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 17287, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/96JA00982

    1996 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Anderson, B

    Winslow, R. M., Anderson, B. J., Johnson, C. L., et al. 2013, Journal of Geo- physical Research (Space Physics), 118, 2213, doi:10.1002/jgra.50237

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 10, doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00875-6

    Wurz, P., Fatemi, S., Galli, A., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 10, doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00875-6

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Rohner, U., et al

    Wurz, P., Whitby, J. A., Rohner, U., et al. 2010, Planet. Space Sci., 58, 1599, doi:10.1016/j.pss.2010.08.003

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    C., & Leblanc, F

    Yagi, M., Seki, K., Matsumoto, Y ., Delcourt, D. C., & Leblanc, F. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115, doi:10.1029/2009JA015226

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Leblanc, F

    Yagi, M., Seki, K., Matsumoto, Y ., Delcourt, D. C., & Leblanc, F. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10,990, doi:10.1002/2017JA024082

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Zhao, J.-T., Zong, Q.-G., Slavin, J. A., et al. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088075 Article number, page 6 of 6

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.