Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 27 references

The Stationary Point: A New Method for Solar Wind Speed Measurements from a Moving Vantage Point

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The stationary point—the fixed angle at which a plasma parcel appears in a fast-moving spacecraft's images—encodes the parcel's radial velocity and trajectory, and the paper shows it can be measured from WISPR images to infer solar wind…

desk verdict Clear new geometry for measuring solar wind speed from WISPR, solid on synthetic tests; the real-data demonstration is a single feature without a morphology check, so treat the 275 km/s as illustrative until a consistency test is done. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01870 v1 pith:7LYJ22NP submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Samuel J. Van Kooten , Craig E. Deforest , Guillermo Stenborg , Kenny N. Kenny This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindParkerProbeWISPRwhite-lightimagingvelocitymeasurementstationarypointcoronalplasmaforwardmodeling
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

This paper introduces the stationary point method for measuring solar wind speeds from images taken by a fast-moving spacecraft. The idea is that a plasma parcel on a collision course with the spacecraft appears at a fixed angle in the image sequence, and that angle, together with the known spacecraft velocity, encodes the parcel's radial speed and trajectory. The authors derive the geometric relations for both planar and three-dimensional encounters, and they show in forward-modeled images that the inferred parameters match the input values to within a few percent. Applied to a feature seen by WISPR on Parker Solar Probe, the method yields a speed of about 275 km/s at roughly 6 solar radii, with a forward model reproducing the observed feature position.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stationary point: the constant angular direction, relative to the spacecraft, at which plasma parcels on a collision course (or on a course to pass directly over or under the spacecraft) appear in a sequence of images. The load-bearing identity is Equation 5 in the planar limit, $v_p = v_{\mathrm{PSP}} \sin\beta/\sin\varepsilon$, and in three dimensions the intersection of constraint C1 (Equation 4, from the law of sines on the in-plane geometry) with constraint C2 (Equation 13, from the time derivative of the out-of-plane angle $\alpha$) determines the parcel's in-plane velocity and longitudinal separation. The argument works because the spacecraft's own motion dominates the apparent motion, making the stationary point a sensitive probe of the plasma velocity.

What would settle it

Compare the stationary-point inferred speed and trajectory for one parcel against an independent measurement of the same parcel, such as stereoscopic triangulation from a second viewpoint or an in-situ crossing by the spacecraft; a disagreement larger than the reported ~10% uncertainty, or a forward model that progressively diverges from the observed feature positions outside the analysis window, would falsify the constant-radial-velocity, passive-tracer interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the direction of the stationary point—the fixed angle at which a collision-course plasma parcel appears in a fast-moving spacecraft's images—encodes the parcel's radial velocity and its trajectory. In the planar limit, the speed is $v_p = v_{\mathrm{PSP}} \sin\beta / \sin\varepsilon$, where $\beta$ is the angle between the parcel's apparent approach direction and the spacecraft velocity, and $\varepsilon$ is the solar elongation of that direction. In three dimensions, two constraints—one from the in-plane apparent velocity (Equation 4) and one from the time derivative of the out-of-plane angle (Equation 13)—intersect to give the in-plane velocity component and the longitudinal separation, and hence the full velocity vector. The paper demonstrates with synthetic images that the method recovers the input parameters accurately, and it applies the method to a WISPR feature, inferring a radial speed of approximately 275 km/s at 6.0 solar radii, with the inferred trajectory reproducing the observed feature when fed back into a forward model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a feature seen at the stationary point is a single, compact blob of plasma moving straight outward from the Sun at constant speed and passively carried by the ambient wind.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method measures solar wind speed from a moving, rotating viewpoint without iterative feature fitting, using only a few angular measurements and the known spacecraft velocity.
  • It can measure parcels whose stationary point falls inside the imager's field of view, including regions as close as a few solar radii and latitudes well outside the orbital plane.
  • A single measured parcel at about 6 solar radii yields a speed of roughly 275 km/s, consistent with the range reported by other solar wind speed measurements in that region.
  • The technique generalizes to any moving viewpoint traveling through an expanding cloud of features, not just Parker Solar Probe's WISPR imager.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied across the WISPR data catalog, the method could produce a latitude-resolved census of wind speeds in the acceleration region, constraining where and how much the solar wind accelerates.
  • The same geometric principle should transfer to other moving imagers observing outwardly advected tracer fields, such as cameras on other spacecraft or atmospheric platforms, whenever the tracers are compact and passively carried.
  • A direct testable extension is to check whether a stationary-point inferred velocity matches an independent measurement of the same parcel, for example stereoscopic triangulation with a second spacecraft or an in-situ encounter by the spacecraft itself.
  • Because the two constraints intersect in the $(v_{pxy}, \Delta\phi)$ plane, systematic errors in the angular measurements would shift the solution along a correlated curve; combining the method with an independent distance estimate could break that degeneracy.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the 'stationary point method' for measuring solar wind speeds from a moving imager such as WISPR/PSP. The authors show that a compact plasma parcel moving radially outward at constant velocity and on a collision course with the spacecraft appears at a fixed angular position ('stationary point') in the image sequence. From the angles of this point relative to the Sun and the spacecraft velocity, the parcel's in-plane velocity and longitudinal separation can be inferred in the 2D case, and the method is extended to 3D using the out-of-plane angle and its time derivative. The derivation is carried through for straight-line and realistic PSP trajectories. The method is demonstrated with forward-modeled images, recovering input parameters to about 1% in a specific case and across a grid of parameters. The paper then applies the method to a single feature in WISPR images from PSP Encounter 16, inferring a speed of about 275 km/s and a trajectory below the orbital plane, and reproduces the feature's appearance with the forward model.

Significance. If validated, this method would provide a new tool for measuring solar wind speeds close to the Sun, complementing existing WISPR techniques and potentially enabling surveys of wind speed at various heliographic latitudes from a close vantage point. The analytic derivation involves no fitted parameters, and the synthetic validation is systematic and demonstrates accurate recovery of input parameters. The method is clearly explained and contrasted with existing methods, and the 3D extension is a meaningful contribution. However, the current real-data demonstration rests on a single visually identified feature with an untested compact-parcel assumption and internally inconsistent reported speeds, so the practical utility is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and 3.1] The paper reports three different values for the same inferred speed: vp = 275 km/s in the main text, vp = 262 ± 27 km/s from the error grid in Section 3, and vp = 271 ± 24 km/s in Section 3.1 as 'our measured value'. The origin of the 271 ± 24 value is not explained, and 275 km/s is not the mean of the error grid. These discrepancies are nontrivial and would confuse any reader trying to use the result. The authors should state a single primary value and clearly report how each secondary value was derived, or correct the inconsistencies.
  2. [Section 3] The uncertainty analysis uses assumed error ranges of ±1° in β, ε, α and ±5% in dα/dt, described as 'generous error margins compared to the spread of values we find after clicking'. However, the actual spread of the 24 clicked measurements is not reported, so the reader cannot judge whether the assumed ranges are appropriate or whether correlated errors (e.g., in β and ε) are accounted for. Since the real-data result is the only empirical validation of the method, the authors should provide the measured scatter and either propagate it directly or justify the assumed ranges with quantitative evidence.
  3. [Section 4] The paper correctly identifies in Section 4 that the method requires features to be 'individual, relatively compact density enhancements moving linearly' and 'passive tracers of the ambient wind.' Yet no observational test of this assumption is provided for the WISPR feature analyzed in Section 3. A split-window test—applying the inversion to the first and second halves of the 2.5-hr sequence and checking consistency of the inferred parameters—would directly probe the constant-velocity/compact-parcel hypothesis. Without such a test, the real-data demonstration only shows that the inferred trajectory can reproduce the observed positions in the authors' own forward model, which is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation of the physical assumption.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title contains a spurious space in 'V antage Point', and the abstract reads 'unique view the young solar wind' instead of 'unique view of the young solar wind'.
  2. [Section 2.2.1] In the text, 'directly approaching PPS' should be 'directly approaching PSP'.
  3. [Section 2.4.2] The phrase 'real-data demonstraction' contains a typo; it should be 'demonstration'.
  4. [Section 3] The text states 'approximately three hours of observations near perihelion' but later refers to the '2.5 hr sequence'; this duration should be made consistent.
  5. [Section 3.1] The distance from the Sun is reported as 6.0 R_sun in Section 3 and 6.3 R_sun in Section 3.1; please reconcile these values.
  6. [Section 3] The notation 'L W-processed' is unusual; please spell out the abbreviation and define it at first use (e.g., \mathcal{L}W-processed).
  7. [Figure 13] The caption would benefit from specifying the number of grid points and the exact distribution used in the assumed-error Monte Carlo.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The geometric inversion is self-contained; the only mild circularity is the real-data 'reproduction' using the inferred trajectory, which is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, paragraph after Figure 11 (real-data application)]
    "Using these inferred parameters, we generate synthetic images of a parcel with the same trajectory and velocity, using the same forward model of Section 2, which are shown in the second and fourth columns of Figure 11. It can be seen that the position of the parcel in the images is reproduced very closely, adding credibility to the claim that this parcel trajectory is implied by the observations, and that the approximations of constant spacecraft and parcel velocities are reasonable."

    The synthetic images are generated by placing a parcel on exactly the trajectory inferred from the measured angles beta, epsilon, alpha, and dalpha/dt. Those angles are the observed image-plane location and motion of the feature, and the forward model deterministically maps a chosen trajectory back to image-plane coordinates; therefore the close match is built into the construction. The agreement is a self-consistency check, not an independent confirmation that the inferred 275 km/s speed is correct. This does not make the geometric derivation (Eqs. 4, 5, 13) circular, because that derivation uses only measured angles and known spacecraft geometry with no fitted constants, and the synthetic known-velocity tests independently recover the input speeds.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equations 4, 5, and 13 follow from the triangle geometry of a constant-velocity radial parcel and a constant-velocity spacecraft; the unknowns vpxy and Delta-phi are solved as the intersection of C1 and C2 from measured beta, epsilon, alpha, dalpha/dt and known vpsp, rpsp. No parameter is fitted to the target speed and then renamed as a prediction. The synthetic demonstrations use parcels with known input velocities and recover them (e.g., 194.9 -> 192.7 km/s), so the inversion has independent content. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited prior work by co-author DeForest (Kenny et al. 2023) is background, not a uniqueness theorem or an assumed ansatz. The real-data comparison in Section 3 does feed the inferred trajectory back into the authors' forward model and calls the resulting position match 'credibility'; that step is mildly circular, because the model is being checked against the same measured angles used to infer the trajectory. The physical compact-parcel and passive-tracer assumptions listed in Section 4 are assumptions, not circular reductions, but they mean the real-data speed is not independently confirmed. Overall, the method's geometric core is not forced by its inputs, so the circularity score is low.

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

The method rests on a geometric derivation with no fitted free parameters: measured angles (beta, epsilon, alpha, d(alpha)/dt) and known spacecraft state (vpsp, rpsp) are the inputs. The load-bearing assumptions are physical: constant radial motion of a compact parcel, constant spacecraft velocity over the window, and passive-tracer behavior. The synthetic forward model introduces intensity-profile parameters, but these do not enter the central speed inference.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed density feature is a single, compact plasma parcel moving radially outward from the Sun at constant velocity.
    Invoked in Section 2.2.1 to set up the geometry and explicitly stated as a limitation in Section 4: 'we must assume that features seen at the stationary point are individual, relatively compact density enhancements moving linearly.' If false, the inferred speed is not the parcel's or the wind's speed.
  • domain assumption The spacecraft velocity is constant in magnitude and direction over the analysis window.
    Used to apply the straight-line geometry. Section 3 checks that PSP's velocity varies by less than 1 km/s and 5 degrees over the 3 hour window, and Section 4 lists it as a requirement for the method.
  • domain assumption The density feature is a passive tracer of the ambient solar wind.
    Section 4: 'we must assume that the discrete density features we can measure are passive tracers of the ambient wind, rather than separate, more transient features.' This is needed to convert the measured parcel speed into a solar wind speed.
  • domain assumption The approximation Delta-phi << epsilon is valid at the moments used for the 2D form (Eq 5).
    Used to simplify Eq 4 to Eq 5 for the straight-line, in-plane case. The 3D method avoids this approximation by using C1 and C2, so it is not load-bearing for the full method.
  • standard math Standard trigonometric relations (law of sines, law of cosines) are correctly applied to the velocity and position triangles.
    Used throughout Section 2 to derive Eqs 4, 5, 6, 7, 13; this is standard geometry that can be independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Stationary Point: A New Method for Solar Wind Speed Measurements from a Moving Vantage Point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LYJ22NP

@misc{pith2026250201870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Stationary Point: A New Method for Solar Wind Speed Measurements from a Moving Vantage Point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LYJ22NP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01870}
}
read the original abstract

The WISPR imager on Parker Solar Probe provides a unique view the young solar wind, flying through solar wind structures at high speed. It is of interest to use WISPR image sequences to measure the velocity of both large features (such as CMEs) and the background, ambient wind. However, WISPR's close-up, rapidly-moving perspective makes the usual methods for measuring velocities from images difficult or impossible to apply, as most apparent motion through the image is due to the motion or rotation of the imager. In this work, we propose a new method of looking for features at the "stationary point" -- a direction from which some plasma parcels appear to approach the spacecraft, remaining at a constant direction in the image sequence. This direction is a function of the plasma's radial velocity, the encounter geometry, and the spacecraft velocity, allowing the former two to be inferred. We demonstrate the technique with forward-modeled images, and we apply it to WISPR observations, inferring the speed and trajectory of a particular density feature. This method promises to enable speed measurements of the young solar wind in an important acceleration region, from a close-up perspective and at latitudes well outside the PSP orbital plane. And while we present this method in a solar wind context, it is broadly applicable to any situation of a moving viewpoint traveling through an expanding cloud of features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of stationary point geometry. PSP Sun Parcel vp va vpsp −vpsp γ γ β ′ δ β ε κ ∆ϕ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Alternative geometry for the case in which the parcel is growing more distant from the spacecraft. rather, through which the spacecraft travels) or which pass directly over or under PSP. 2.2. Straight-line spacecraft motion 2.2.1. Geometry In a first, simplified case in which PSP is traveling in a straight line with a constant velocity and the plasma being observed is in the orbital plane, collision-course plasma pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The situation just before collision. Shown are the same PSP and parcel positions as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: an overhead view of our model setup, with the spacecraft (blue dot) traveling to the left in a straight line (blue) and its field of view indicated by the thin white lines. A number of plasma parcels (orange) travel radially out from the Sun, with their positions …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic time–distance plots produced by straight-line spacecraft motion through a cloud of plasma parcels (as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time–distance plots for realistic PSP motion. Top: A traditional time–distance plot showing elongation (angular distance from the Sun). Middle: Our “de-rotated” plot, using a fixed-frame angular position as the distance axis. Bottom: A corresponding map of the distance…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diagram of 3D stationary point geometry. Every￾thing is in the x − y plane except for the parcel, its velocity, and the angles α and θ. The in-plane geometry is that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Constraints produced for the model setup of Fig￾ure 10. The solid portion for each of the two variants of the second constraint represent their domain of validity, and the dotted portions extend the curves outside that domain, to illustrate each more completely. The do…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model demonstration of the stationary point in 3D. The left-hand column provides an overhead view at four points in time across a 3-hr window. As in Figures 4 and 6, the blue dot and curve are the spacecraft and its trajectory, orange marks plasma parcels, and yellow …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Constraints generated for the parcel marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distributions and correlations of output quantities over a grid of assumed errors. See the text for details. perihelion) may not be measurable as their stationary point lies outside the field of view. Second, we must assume that features seen at the sta￾tionary point …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., & Woo, R

    Armstrong, J. W., & Woo, R. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 103, 415 Astropy Collaboration. 2024, Astropy 6.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11121433 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, 156, 123, doi: 1...

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.11121433 1981

  2. [2]

    D., Drake, J

    Bale, S. D., Drake, J. F., McManus, M. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 252, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05955-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05955-3 2023

  3. [3]

    R., & Vourlidas, A

    Braga, C. R., & Vourlidas, A. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039490

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039490 2021

  4. [4]

    R., Gibson, S

    Cranmer, S. R., Gibson, S. E., & Riley, P. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1345, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0416-y

    doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0416-y 2017

  5. [5]

    R., & Winebarger, A

    Cranmer, S. R., & Winebarger, A. R. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416 2019

  6. [6]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AAC8E3

    Vourlidas, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AAC8E3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8e3 2018

  7. [7]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6 2016

  8. [8]

    2024, Scipy/Scipy: SciPy 1.13.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10909890

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, Scipy/Scipy: SciPy 1.13.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10909890

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10909890 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Stenborg, G., Vourlidas, A., et al

    Howard, R. A., Stenborg, G., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff5

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 The Stationary Point 17

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    N., DeForest, C

    Kenny, M. N., DeForest, C. E., West, M. J., & Liewer, P. C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdfc5

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, Solar Physics, 294, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1489-4

    Liewer, P., Vourlidas, A., Thernisien, A., et al. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1489-4

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Qiu, J., Ark, F., et al

    Liewer, P. C., Qiu, J., Ark, F., et al. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 128, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-02058-6

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Qiu, J., Penteado, P., et al

    Liewer, P. C., Qiu, J., Penteado, P., et al. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01715-y

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039641

    Penteado, P. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039641

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Vourlidas, A., Stenborg, G., et al

    Liewer, P. C., Vourlidas, A., Stenborg, G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8c7 Matplotlib Development Team. 2024, Matplotlib 3.8.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10916799

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Freij, N., Stansby, D., et al

    Mumford, S. J., Freij, N., Stansby, D., et al. 2024, SunPy 5.1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10927245

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039414 Nistic` o, G., Bothmer, V., Vourlidas, A., et al

    Nindos, A., Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039414 Nistic` o, G., Bothmer, V., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01626-y

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

    Raouafi, N. E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6c

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Wang, Y

    Sheeley, N. R., Wang, Y. M., Hawley, S. H., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 484, 472, doi: 10.1086/304338 SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f7a

    1997 doi

  14. [22]

    Thompson, W. T. 2009, Icarus, 200, 351, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.011

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    M., & Borovsky, J

    Viall, N. M., & Borovsky, J. E. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2018JA026005, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026005

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Vourlidas, A

    Viall, N. M., & Vourlidas, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/176

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Plunkett, S

    Vourlidas, A., Howard, R. A., Plunkett, S. P., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 83, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0114-y

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, Solar Physics, 295, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01677-1

    Wexler, D., Imamura, T., Efimov, A., et al. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01677-1

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.