Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Continuous In-Situ and Remote Sun Observation for Space Weather Monitoring and Mitigation of Infrastructure Threats Through an Optimized Heliocentric Satellite Constellation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A six-spacecraft heliocentric constellation could watch the whole Sun and the Sun-Earth line simultaneously.

desk verdict Novel constellation concept, but the headline coverage claims are asserted rather than demonstrated, and the period-ratio derivation has a real gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07777 v2 pith:ZWUA7BRN submitted 2024-11-22 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Leonidas Askianakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords spaceweatherheliocentricsatelliteconstellationEllipticalWalkerSun-Earthlinemonitoringcoronalmassejection3Dreconstructionin-situsolarwindmeasurementsdesignCMEforecasting
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 claims that a single constellation of six small spacecraft, placed in a specially synchronized heliocentric orbit pattern, can do what currently requires several separate solar missions: watch the whole Sun at once, sample the inner heliosphere in situ, keep an unbroken eye on the Sun-Earth line, and provide the multi-view angles needed to reconstruct coronal mass ejections in 3D. The design builds on an Elliptical Walker-like constellation with a 0.48 AU semi-major axis, 0.65 eccentricity, 47-degree inclination, and evenly spaced orbital planes. The author shows that the synchronization condition linking each satellite's period to Earth's year reduces to a ratio of 3, and that this ratio, together with periapsis and apoapsis limits, fixes the orbital architecture. If the constellation works as claimed, space-weather forecasting could get continuous, multi-point data that distinguishes spatial from temporal solar-wind changes and gives infrastructure operators earlier warnings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Elliptical Walker-like constellation: six eccentric heliocentric orbits with the Sun at one focus, orbital planes evenly rotated around the Sun, arguments of periapsis aligned so each orbit's long axis lies in the ecliptic, and true anomalies coupled so spacecraft cluster near apoapsis for stereoscopy. Its defining identity is the synchronization condition $T_{\mathrm{Earth}} = \frac{2\kappa+1}{2\lambda+1}\,T_{\mathrm{satellite}}$; taking the smallest odd-over-odd ratio (3) sets the semi-major axis to about 0.48 AU, after which the periapsis and apoapsis constraints fix the eccentricity range and the rest of the configuration follows. This coupling is what lets one constellation meet remote-sensing, in-situ, and line-of-sight objectives at the same time.

What would settle it

One concrete check: numerically search for a six-spacecraft heliocentric configuration with $T_{\mathrm{Earth}} = 2\,T_{\mathrm{satellite}}$ (semi-major axis about 0.63 AU), apoapsis below 1 AU, periapsis between 0.1 and 0.3 AU, and the same orbital-plane spacing, and test whether the Sun-Earth line is covered continuously within a 10-degree cone; if such a configuration exists, the paper's derivation of a unique 3:1 optimum is not necessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the mission objectives—full-sphere solar observation, Sun-Earth line monitoring, in-situ inner-heliosphere measurements, and 3D CME reconstruction—can be satisfied simultaneously by six spacecraft in an Elliptical Walker-like heliocentric configuration. The paper derives the configuration from a synchronization requirement: Earth's period must equal an odd-over-odd integer multiple of the satellite period, and minimizing that ratio while keeping apoapsis inside 1 AU yields $T_{\mathrm{Earth}} = 3\,T_{\mathrm{satellite}}$, hence a semi-major axis of about 0.48 AU. With periapsis constrained to 0.1–0.3 AU for in-situ science, the eccentricity range becomes 0.37–0.79, and the paper selects 0.65; inclination is set to 47 degrees to cover the poles while allowing Venus gravity assists, and true anomalies are coupled so that pairs of satellites repeatedly pass within 10 degrees on the Satellite-Sun-Satellite triangle, opening stereoscopy windows. The author further claims continuous Sun-Earth line coverage within a 10-degree cone and a communications outage of only about 6% of each orbit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design rests on the claim that continuous Sun-Earth line coverage forces the satellite period to be an odd-integer fraction of Earth's year, but the paper does not prove that a ratio like one half is impossible; if a 2:1 ratio worked, the orbit size would change and the claimed uniqueness of the 0.48 AU configuration would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • According to the paper, the same constellation can replace separate remote-sensing and in-situ solar missions, reducing cost while adding simultaneous multi-point coverage.
  • Continuous Sun-Earth line monitoring would let forecasters see Earth-directed CMEs earlier and warn power-grid, satellite, and GNSS operators before the disturbance arrives.
  • Coupled true anomalies create repeated windows for 3D geometric reconstruction of CMEs and magnetic-loop stereoscopy, addressing a known gap left by earlier stereo missions.
  • Because the geometry is symmetric and modular, adding spacecraft can increase coverage or redundancy without redesigning the constellation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the 3:1 period ratio is chosen as the smallest odd-over-odd integer ratio, but an even ratio of 2 would give a larger semi-major axis and a different orbit; a direct trade study could show whether the Sun-Earth line stays covered with fewer or cheaper spacecraft.
  • Beyond the paper: symmetric RAAN spacing maximizes long-run average coverage, but a launch-window-specific asymmetric spacing could concentrate spacecraft near the Sun-Earth line during the early mission years, when the risk of an unpredicted storm is highest.
  • Beyond the paper: the claimed 4π coverage is geometric; instrument field-of-view limits and data-downlink constraints would determine how much of that coverage is scientifically usable, so a payload-level simulation is the natural next test.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a six-spacecraft heliocentric constellation in an 'Elliptical Walker-like' configuration (semi-major axis 0.48 AU, eccentricity 0.65, inclination 47°, equally spaced RAANs, and cross-coupled true anomalies) intended to simultaneously provide continuous 4π-steradian coverage of the Sun's surface, continuous monitoring of the Sun-Earth line, in-situ inner-heliosphere measurements, 3D CME reconstruction, and detection/localization of type-II and III radio bursts. The orbital period is derived from a synchronization condition with Earth's period in Eqs. (5)-(7), yielding a 3:1 period ratio. The paper presents a snapshot of the converged constellation, a qualitative discussion of stereoscopy windows, and a communication-link analysis claiming about 6% outage per orbit. No time-resolved coverage simulation, overlap metric, or duty-cycle analysis is provided.

Significance. If substantiated, a small-satellite constellation that delivers continuous full-sphere solar observation, permanent Sun-Earth line monitoring, and simultaneous in-situ measurements would be an important mission concept for space weather research and infrastructure protection. The paper contains some useful ingredients: the idea of a heliocentric elliptical Walker-like pattern with coupled true anomalies, a concise survey of existing mission limitations, and rough trajectory-feasibility estimates using the EDVEGA method. However, as it stands the paper is a high-level concept study rather than a validated design; the central claims are asserted from snapshots and qualitative arguments, and the derivation of the key period ratio is not rigorous. The contribution would benefit from being framed as an early mission-concept description rather than a demonstration of feasibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The derivation of the 3:1 period ratio is not rigorous. Equation (6) imposes T_Earth = (2κ+1)/(2λ+1) T_satellite as an 'additional symmetry condition' needed to synchronize periapsis passages, but no argument is given for why this specific odd/odd form is necessary. In particular, the ratio T_Earth = 2 T_satellite is compatible with the half-period synchronization expressed in Eq. (5) and with the apoapsis constraint r_apoapsis < 1 AU (it gives a ≈ 0.63 AU), yet it is excluded without justification. The subsequent statement that the configuration is 'uniquely determined' and 'mathematically ensures the optimality' therefore overstates what has been shown; the constraints themselves appear to have been chosen to yield the 3:1 result.
  2. [Sections 3.1, 4.4 and Table 2 (M1, M4)] The paper's headline claims of continuous 4π-steradian coverage of the Sun's surface with at least 10% overlap and of continuous monitoring of the Sun-Earth line in a 10° cone are not backed by any coverage calculation. Section 4.4 reports the final orbital elements and Figure 6 shows a single snapshot, but there is no time-resolved simulation of the union of spacecraft fields of view, no minimum-overlap metric, no duty cycle for the SEL cone, and no analysis of how the 10° cone requirement is maintained as spacecraft move along their orbits. The statement in the abstract that these capabilities are 'demonstrated' is therefore unsupported; a constellation can satisfy the stated resonance condition and still fail to provide continuous coverage.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 2 (M3, M13)] The claimed observation windows for 3D CME reconstruction and magnetic stereoscopy are only illustrated by the snapshot in Figures 4-5, where two satellites are said to be within 10° on the Satellite-Sun-Satellite triangle. The paper does not quantify the frequency, duration, or distribution of these windows over the mission lifetime, nor does it specify the separation-angle criterion used to define a 'window' beyond the single-snapshot example. Without this, the claim that the constellation 'ensures' such windows (Section 4.2) is not established.
  4. [Table 2 and abstract] Several mission objectives are listed but never analyzed: M5-M11 (type-II/III radio burst detection and 3D localization, CME/SEP arrival forecasting) and M2 (high-resolution magnetic data) are not connected to any instrument model, detection algorithm, or quantitative performance estimate in the manuscript. The abstract's assertion that the constellation makes it possible to 'predict which space or ground-based infrastructure and when it will be affected by CMEs' is therefore a goal statement rather than a demonstrated result. A mission-concept paper may present objectives, but it should distinguish objectives from validated achievements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figures 4-5 and Section 4.2] The caption and text refer to the 'apoapsis phase' as a close encounter with the Sun; since close approaches occur at periapsis, the terminology is reversed and should be corrected.
  2. [Figures] Figure 8 is used for two different plots: 'Inscribed angles of S' and S spacecraft' and 'SES-angle analysis'; renumber the figures to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 5] The sentence 'a constant 4.4π coverage could be achieved' appears to contain a typo (presumably 4π) and is in any case not explained quantitatively.
  4. [References] References [29] and [31] are identical, and [30] and [31] appear to cite the same paper; consolidate the bibliography.
  5. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (6)] In Eq. (1), λ denotes a decay length, while in Eq. (6) λ is an integer; use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
  6. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'interstellar medium' should be 'interplanetary medium' or 'heliosphere'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The claimed mathematical optimality of a=0.48 AU is imposed by an ad hoc odd/odd period-ratio constraint and then declared uniquely optimal; the headline coverage claims are asserted without a coverage model, which is an evidence gap rather than circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, Eqs. (5)-(7), 'Semi-major axis and eccentricity assignment']
    "Moreover, to achieve uniform coverage of the SEL ... an additional symmetry condition has to be established ... the time instances that the Earth and satellites reach their periapsis have to be synchronized, which results into (2𝜆 + 1) 1/2 𝛵𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ = (2𝜅 + 1) 1/2 𝑇𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒 ... Then, by combining Eqs. (4) and (6), and minimizing the coefficients ... we end up with the final optimal coefficients ... Under these circumstances and constraints, the satellite configuration is uniquely determined by these coefficients, and this exact uniqueness ..."

    Equation (6) is introduced as an 'additional symmetry condition' whose necessity is asserted rather than derived from a coverage or geometry calculation; Eq. (5) alone would admit other rational period ratios. The text then 'minimizes the coefficients' and declares the resulting 3:1 ratio, hence a≈0.48 AU, to be the 'final optimal coefficients' whose uniqueness 'mathematically ensures the optimality of the design.' No objective function is defined: the only constraints entering the minimization are the ones the author imposed. The unique optimum is therefore an artifact of the constraint set, and the result is equivalent to the input rule 'use the smallest odd/odd ratio greater than one.' If the odd/odd restriction were relaxed, Eq.

full rationale

I find one genuine circular step, confined to the optimality claim in Section 4.1. The paper's headline claims of continuous 4π-steradian solar coverage (M1) and continuous Sun-Earth line monitoring (M4) are not backed by any coverage simulation, overlap analysis, or duty-cycle calculation, but that is a missing-evidence problem rather than circularity: there is no equation or fitted parameter to exhibit that reduces the claim to its input. The orbital elements are indeed selected from the mission objectives (inclination from M1, period from M4, periapsis alignments for SEL, true anomalies from M3/M13), and the conclusion restates that the objectives are satisfied, but the paper does not actually derive coverage from the geometry, so the restatement is an unsupported assertion, not a demonstrated equivalence. Self-citation is not load-bearing: reference [36] is the author's own prior work but appears only in a speculative future-work remark about robotic launcher unpacking, and the main cited constellation result [7] is external. The central circularity is the 'mathematical optimality' of the 3:1 period ratio: the odd/odd synchronization condition is imposed ad hoc, the coefficients are then minimized, and the resulting unique solution is called mathematically optimal. That optimality reduces by construction to the author's chosen constraint rather than to an independently evaluated objective. I therefore score the paper 4: one significant self-definitional step in the optimality argument, while the broader mission-design content is not itself a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The orbital parameters are mostly selected by hand or via unspecified optimizations, and the axioms include the central geometric assumptions (4π coverage, stereoscopy window sufficiency) that are asserted rather than demonstrated.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of spacecraft n = 6
    Chosen without explicit derivation; the paper does not show why 6 spacecraft are required for 4π coverage.
  • Eccentricity e = 0.65
    Selected within the allowed range (0.37 < e < 0.79 from Eq. 8) to enable Venus fly-bys; the exact value is not derived.
  • Inclination i = 47 degrees
    Picked from zenith viewing angle and Δv / Venus fly-by considerations; no quantitative optimization is shown.
  • Argument of periapsis assignment = Numerical, not tabulated
    Result of a claimed Runge-Kutta-4-based optimization; no details, cost function, or result table are provided.
  • True anomaly assignment = Coupled, not tabulated
    Optimized to enable stereoscopy and Sun-Earth line coverage, but the optimization is not reproducible from the text.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Keplerian orbital mechanics with point-mass Sun and no perturbations
    Used implicitly for the period relations in Eqs. (5) to (7).
  • ad hoc to paper The odd/odd period ratio condition (Eq. 6) is necessary for continuous Sun-Earth line coverage
    This condition filters out the ratio 2 and forces T_Earth = 3 T_satellite; its necessity is not derived.
  • domain assumption A constellation satisfying the stated geometric constraints yields continuous 4π coverage of the Sun's surface
    Stated in Sections 3.1 and 4.4 but not proven by a coverage map or overlap calculation.
  • domain assumption Two satellites separated by less than 10 degrees on the Sun-satellite-satellite triangle enable both 3D CME reconstruction and magnetic stereoscopy
    Borrowed from stereoscopy literature; no error analysis for reconstruction quality is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous In-Situ and Remote Sun Observation for Space Weather Monitoring and Mitigation of Infrastructure Threats Through an Optimized Heliocentric Satellite Constellation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWUA7BRN

@misc{pith2026241207777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous In-Situ and Remote Sun Observation for Space Weather Monitoring and Mitigation of Infrastructure Threats Through an Optimized Heliocentric Satellite Constellation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWUA7BRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07777}
}
read the original abstract

Although vital for life on Earth, solar activity poses questions and increasing threats to humanity due to the Sun's unknown dynamics, intensified by our dependence on terrestrial and space-based infrastructure. This situation is compounded by significant gaps in our understanding of space weather phenomena, the Sun's magnetic field, and the need for rapid responses to unpredicted solar events. To address these issues, an optimized heliocentric satellite constellation is proposed that leverages satellites in an Elliptical Walker Constellation. This system offers (among others) equally distributed arguments of periapsis separations and cross-coupled true anomalies with respect to the Sun-centric coordinate frame. In this paper it is also demonstrated that this strategic multi-spacecraft configuration makes it possible to distinguish spatial and temporal changes in solar wind phenomena, reconstruct, in 3D, Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), predict which space or ground-based infrastructure and when it will be affected by CMEs, maintain continuous coverage of the critical Sun-Earth line throughout the mission's duration, and protect future missions by providing simultaneously in-situ and remote measurements from small and cost-effective satellites.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07777 by the authors.

Figure 8
Figure 8. Inscribed angles of S' and S spacecraft The non-regularities appearing on the patterns between the angles are caused by the simultaneous relative motion of Earth around the Sun. It can also be seen that some graphs show symmetry over the y-axis by two, indicating the offset between a satellite "preceding" or "succeeding" Earth while fulfilling the SEL mission objective (M4). The curves would have a theoretical upper… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These effects include data compromise, radio interference, premature satellite deorbit, power grid failures, and GNSS data compromise

    INTRODUCTION Solar activity, characterized by phenomena such as sunspots, solar flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), has profound effects on space weather, posing significant risks to Earth's technological infrastructure. These effects include data compromise, radio interference, premature satellite deorbit, power grid failures, and GNSS data compro...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Existing Missions While analyzing the capabilities and objectives of existing and upcoming missions, multiple shortcomings have been identified interchangeably between them

    MISSION OVERVIEW 2.1. Existing Missions While analyzing the capabilities and objectives of existing and upcoming missions, multiple shortcomings have been identified interchangeably between them. A summary of those follows in the following table, and a detailed assignment of each of those to the relevant existing mission follows in the appendix. (a) Only ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 3.1. Continuous 4π-Steradian Coverage The full 4π-observation coverage of the Sun's heliosphere is critical for a comprehensive understanding of solar phenomena and their impact on space weather. This coverage ensures that all regions of the Sun are observed simultaneously, allowing for contin uous monitoring of solar activities, solar...

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    ASTRODYNAMICS 4.1. Orbital Configuration Design To determine the optimal orbital configuration of the constellation, we started by studying the extensive list of mission objectives and grouping the orbital features of the spacecraft with which objectives they can achieve simultaneously. The resulting concept was an Elliptical Walker -like constellation [5...

    work page

  5. [5]

    double jump

    COMMUNICATIONS For the given satellite configuration, a telecommunications disruption analysis has also been performed to validate the healthy communication link between satellites and Earth for most of the orbital period of each satellite. For this, the Satellite -Earth-Satellite (SES) angle analysis on the respective triangle has been analyzed. Figure 7...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Specifically, further improvement on th e orbit insertion maneuvers and the synchronization with the launch date and the respective eccentricities will be necessary

    FUTURE WORK Although the design has been carried out to its fullest extent and an optimal (symmetric) orbital configuration for the mission has been identified, further improvement could be inherited in some specific categories. Specifically, further improvement on th e orbit insertion maneuvers and the synchronization with the launch date and the respect...

    work page

  7. [7]

    CONCLUSION Based on the comprehensive analysis showcased in this paper, we identified a mission design capable of achieving simultaneously the most scientific and civil - related objectives than any other existing mission. Many of the newly introduced objectives, like the continuous coverage of the safety-critical SEL (M4, M9, M10, M11) and the achievemen...

    work page

  8. [8]

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the pre-print status of this manuscript, with it being already submitted for a potential publication at the Journal of Space Safety Engineering

    work page

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Aschwanden, M., Schrijver, C., & Malanushenko, A. (2015). Blind Stereoscopy of the Coronal Magnetic Field. Solar Physics, 290, 2765-2789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207- 015-0791-z

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Kawakatsu, Y., & Kawaguchi, J. (2011). Trajectory options for solar polar region observation mission. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

    2011

  3. [11]

    Kawaguchi, J.: Solar Electric Propulsion Leverage: Electric Delta -VEGA (EDVEGA) Scheme and its Application, Proceedings of 10th Work -shop on Astrodynamics and Flight Mechanics, 2000, pp. 113-122

    2000

  4. [12]

    Kawaguchi, J. (2002). Performance evaluation for the Electric Delta -v Earth Gravity Assist (EDVEGA) scheme. In AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, 5-8 August 2002, Monterey, California. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    2002

  5. [13]

    Satellite constellations,

    J. G. Walker, “Satellite constellations,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 37, pp. 559–571, Dec. 1984

    1984

  6. [14]

    Dufour, F. (2003). Coverage optimization of elliptical satellite constellations with an extended satellite triplet method. In 54th IAC of the IAF, the IAA, and the International Institute of Space Law, 29 September - 3 October 2003, Bremen, Germany (IAC-03-A.3.02). American In...

    2003

  7. [15]

    A Heliocentric Satellite Constellation for Continuous Solar Coverage and Space Weather Monitoring,

    A. Shtofenmakher et al., "A Heliocentric Satellite Constellation for Continuous Solar Coverage and Space Weather Monitoring," 2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 2024, pp. 1 -20, doi: 10.1109/AERO58975.2024.10521338

    2024

  8. [16]

    Müller, D., St. Cyr, et. al. (2020). The Solar Orbiter mission - Science overview. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    The flower constellations

    Mortari, D.;Wilkins, M.P.; Bruccoleri, C. The flower constellations. J. Astronaut. Sci. 2004, 52, 107–127

    2004

  10. [18]

    P., Clifton, R

    Ferringer, M. P., Clifton, R. S., & Thompson, T. G. (2007). Efficient and accurate evolutionary multi-objective optimization paradigms for satellite constellation design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 44 (3), 700 -709. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.26747

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    P., & Spencer, D

    Ferringer, M. P., & Spencer, D. B. (2012). Satellite constellation design tradeoffs using multiple-objective evolutionary computation. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.18788

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    T., & Randolph, J

    Tsurutani, B. T., & Randolph, J. D. (1991). NASA solar probe mission: In situ determination of the solar dust environment. Space Science Reviews, 56(3 -4), 347-416. doi: 10.1007/BF00170243

    1991 doi

  13. [21]

    Feng, L., Wiegelmann, T. , et. al (2007). Magnetic stereoscopy of coronal loops in NOAA 8891. Solar Physics, 241(2), 235 -249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-007-0370-z

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Solar stereoscopy where are we and what developments do we require to progress

    T.Wiegelmann et al. "Solar stereoscopy where are we and what developments do we require to progress." Annales Geophysicae, 27 (2009): 2925-2936. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-27- 2925-2009

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    (2023, May) SWFO instruments

    NOAA. (2023, May) SWFO instruments. National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. [Online]. Available: https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/nextgeneration/sp ace-weather/swfo-instruments

    2023

  16. [24]

    Klein, K.G., Spence, H., Alexandrova, O. et al. HelioSwarm: A Multipoint, Multi -scale Mission to Characterize Turbulence. Space Sci Rev 219, 74 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-023-01019-0

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Hapgood, M

    Eastwood, J. P., Hapgood, M. A., Biffis, et al.(2018). Quantifying the economic value of space weather forecasting for powergrids: An exploratory study. SpaceWeather, 16, 2052 –

    2018

  18. [26]

    Riley, P., Lionello, R., Linker, J., Mikic, Z., Luhmann, J., & Wijaya, J. (2011). Global MHD Modeling of the Solar Corona and Inner Heliosphere for the Whole Heliosphere Interval. Solar Physics . https://doi.org/10.1007/S11207-010-9698-X

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Space Weather Effects on Satellites

    Miteva, Rositsa, Susan W. Samwel, and Stela Tkatchova. 2023. "Space Weather Effects on Satellites" Astronomy 2, no. 3: 165 -179. https://doi.org/10.3390/astronomy2030012

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Sreeja, V. (2016). Impact and mitigation of space weather effects on GNSS receiver performance. Geoscience Letters, 3(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-016-0057-0

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Dang, T., Li, X., Luo, B., Li, R., Zhang, B., Pham, K., et al. (2022). Unveiling the space weather during the Starlink satellites destruction event on 4 February 2022. Space Weather, 20, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003152

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Fox, N.J., Velli, M.C., Bale, S.D. et al. The Solar Probe Plus Mission: Humanity’s First Visit to Our Star. Space Sci Rev 204, 7 –48 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015- 0211-6

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Wenzel, K., Marsden, et. al. (1986). The Ulysses mission. Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-009-4612-5_54

    1986 doi

  24. [32]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. (1995). The SOHO mission: An overview. Solar Physics. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733425

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    Pesnell, W., P. (2012). The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). Solar Physics , 275, 3 -

    2012

  26. [34]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02847- 7_16-1

    doi

  27. [35]

    Kleimann, J. (2012). 4π Models of CMEs and ICMEs (Invited Review). Solar Physics, 281, 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11207-012- 9994-8

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Askianakis, L. (2024). Grammarization -based grasping with deep multi -autoencoder latent space exploration by reinforcement learning agent. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.08566

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Brooks, D., Ugarte -Urra, I., & Warren, H. (2015). Full -Sun observations for identifying the source of the slow solar wind. Nature Communications, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6947

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    Bemporad, A., Andretta, V., Pancrazzi, M., Focardi, M., Straus, T., Sasso, C., Spadaro, D., Uslenghi, M., Antonucci, E., Fineschi, S., Abbo, Naletto, G., & Nicolosi, P. (2014). On-board CME detection algorithm for the Solar Orbiter - METIS coronagraph. , 9152. https://doi.org/...

    2014 doi

  31. [41]

    Lobzin, V., Cairns, I., & Zaslavsky, A. (2014). Automatic recognition of type III solar radio bursts in STEREO/WAVES data for on -board real‐time and archived data processing. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 742 - 750. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019008

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    Quantifying the economic value of space weather forecasting for power grids: An exploratory study,

    J. P. Eastwood et al., “Quantifying the economic value of space weather forecasting for power grids: An exploratory study,” Space Weather, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 2052 –2067, Dec. 2018, publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Online]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102 9/...

    2018

  33. [43]

    R., & de Haseth, J

    Griffiths, P. R., & de Haseth, J. A. (2007). Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience

    2007

  34. [44]

    F., Mason, G

    Rodríguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer - Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., Ho, G. C., Gómez-Herrero, R., Prieto, M., Cernuda, I., Kollhoff, A., & González, V. (2020). The energetic particle detector. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A7. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935287

    2020 doi

  35. [45]

    Bale, S., Goetz, et. al. FIELDS instrument suite for solar probe plus. Space Science Reviews, 204(1-4), 49 -82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi

  36. [47]

    Existing Missions Analysis

    APPENDIX Solar Orbiter [8] - (a) Only constrained and non-continuous observations of the Sun’s poles - (b) Limited stereoscopic analysis and 3D reconstruction capabilities - (c) No 3D localization of radio bursts - (d) Limited and discontinuous forecasting of the arrival of CM...

  37. [2067]

    https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002003

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.