Impressive images from the Hubble Space Telescope not only help scientists understand our universe, but also enhance public interest in science, becoming a gateway for the youngest generation to enter Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Heliophysics observatories can also provide dramatic images of our space environment. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO; Domingo et al., 1995) images the dynamic activities of our Sun and its solar corona. Solar Terrestrial Relation Observatory (STEREO; Kaiser et al., 2008) monitors solar wind features propagating through interplanetary space. Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE; Burch, 2000) and Two Wide-Angle Imaging Neutral-Atom Spectrometers (TWINS; Goldstein & McComas, 2018) display the activities of the Earth's inner-magnetosphere in response to varying solar wind conditions. Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) All Sky Imagers (ASI) distributed over the northern portions of North America (Mende et al., 2008) image aurora precipitation resulting from magnetospheric activities. The one missing image is the dayside magnetosphere, the starting point for the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.

The Earth's hydrogen exosphere Lyman‐α radiation was mapped with the Solar Wind Anisotropies/Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SWAN/SOHO) instrument in January 1996, 1997, and 1998 (low solar activity). The use of a hydrogen absorption cell allowed to disentangle the interplanetary emission from the geocoronal one and to assign the absorbed signal almost entirely to the geocorona. The geocorona was found to extend at least up to 100 Earth radii (RE) with an intensity of 5 Rayleigh, an unprecedented distance well exceeding the recent results of Lyman Alpha Imaging Camera (LAICA) imager (∼50 RE), and encompassing the orbit of the Moon (∼60 RE). We developed a numerical kinetic model of the hydrogen atoms distribution in the exosphere, which includes the solar Lyman‐α radiation pressure and the ionization. The radiation pressure compresses the H exosphere on the dayside, producing a bulge of H density between 3 and 20 RE, which fits observed intensities very well. The SWAN Lyman‐α distribution of intensity was compared both to LAICA (2015) and to Orbiting Geophysical Observatory number 5 (1968) measurements. Integrated H densities of SWAN at a tangent distance of 7 RE are larger than LAICA/Orbiting Geophysical Observatory number 5 by factors 1.1–2.5, while we should expect a stronger effect of the radiation pressure at solar max. We discuss the possible role of H atoms in satellite orbits to explain this apparent contradiction. An onion‐peeling technique is used to retrieve hydrogen number density in the exosphere for the three SWAN observations. They show an excess of density versus models at large distances, which is likely due to nonthermal atoms (not in the model).

Global models of the heliosphere are critical tools used in the interpretation of heliospheric observations. There are several three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) heliospheric models that rely on different strategies and assumptions. Until now only one paper has compared global heliosphere models, but without magnetic field effects. We compare the results of two different MHD models, the BU and Moscow models. Both models use identical boundary conditions to compare how different numerical approaches and physical assumptions contribute to the heliospheric solution. Based on the different numerical treatments of discontinuities, the BU model allows for the presence of magnetic reconnection, while the Moscow model does not. Both models predict collimation of the solar outflow in the heliosheath by the solar magnetic field and produce a split tail where the solar magnetic field confines the charged solar particles into distinct north and south columns that become lobes. In the BU model, the interstellar medium (ISM) flows between the two lobes at large distances due to MHD instabilities and reconnection. Reconnection in the BU model at the port flank affects the draping of the interstellar magnetic field in the immediate vicinity of the heliopause. Different draping in the models cause different ISM pressures, yielding different heliosheath thicknesses and boundary locations, with the largest effects at high latitudes. The BU model heliosheath is 15% thinner and the heliopause is 7% more inwards at the north pole relative to the Moscow model. These differences in the two plasma solutions may manifest themselves in energetic neutral atom measurements of the heliosphere.