Thermospheric Temperature and Density Variability During 3–4 February 2022 Minor Geomagnetic Storm

In this study, we present ionospheric observations of field‐aligned currents from AMPERE and the ESA Swarm A satellite, in conjunction with high‐resolution thermospheric density measurements from accelerometers on board Swarm C and GRACE‐FO, for the third and 4 February 2022 geomagnetic storms that led to the loss of 38 Starlink internet satellites. We study the global storm time response of the thermospheric density enhancements, including their decay and latitudinal distribution. We find that the thermospheric density enhances globally in response to high‐latitude energy input from the magnetosphere‐solar wind system and takes at least a full day to recover to pre‐storm density levels. We also find that the greatest density perturbations occur at polar latitudes consistent with the magnetosphere‐ionosphere dayside cusp, and that there appeared to be a saturation of the thermospheric density during the geomagnetic storm on the fourth. Our results highlight the critical importance of high‐latitude ionospheric observations when diagnosing potentially hazardous conditions for low‐Earth‐orbit satellites.

Section: Thermospheric Density Response and Decaysupporting

confidence: 79%

The 2022 Starlink Geomagnetic Storms: Global Thermospheric Response to a High‐Latitude Ionospheric Driver

Billett,

Sartipzadeh,

Ivarsen

et al. 2024

“…This storm should be considered as a "moderate" storm based on the Dst index (Borovsky & Shprits, 2017;Loewe & Prölss, 1997). The Dst index is not always a great indicator of geomagnetic storms (Borovsky & Shprits, 2017;McPherron & Chu, 2016), thus Laskar et al (2023) also used 3 hourly Kp and Ap indices and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) classification during this storm. The maxima of 3-hourly Kp and Ap indices in this storm were 5 + and 56 nT, respectively, thus this storm was classified as a minor storm (G1) according to the NOAA SWPC's Space Weather Scale (https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To gain a better understanding of the thermospheric variations during this minor storm, several studies have been conducted using observations from satellites and numerical simulations from thermospheric models (Cai et al, 2023(Cai et al, , 2024Dang et al, 2022;Fang et al, 2022;Kataoka et al, 2022;Laskar et al, 2023;Lin et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2022). Dang et al (2022) provided a comprehensive review of the SpaceX event and simulations by the TIE-GCM model showed around 20%-30% atmospheric density perturbations at 210 km during the minor storm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The numerical simulation by the WAM-IPE model from Fang et al (2022) indicated around 50%-125% neutral density enhancement at altitudes ranging from 200 to 400 km during this minor storm. Laskar et al (2023) studied disk temperature observations from Global-scale Observations of the Limb and Disk (GOLD) mission and found more than 60 K neutral temperature enhancement. Furthermore, they found the thermospheric density varied with altitudes from 15% (at 150 km) to 80% (at 500 km) by utilizing observed neutral temperature to GOLD-MSIS simulation, finding a GOLD equivalent MSIS2 simulation by varying geomagnetic Ap index values.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

The thermosphere, locates at an altitude of 80 and 1,000 km above the Earth's surface, is significantly influenced by the momentum inputs from solar radiation and solar wind energetic particles, and the atmospheric turbulence from the lower atmosphere (Laskar et al, 2023). Solar radiation, especially through extreme ultraviolet (EUV) heating, determines the basic structure and long-term variations of the thermosphere, such as solar rotation periods and solar activity cycles (Guo et al, 2007;Jacchia, 1959;Solomon & Roble, 2015).

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Daytime Variations of Thermospheric Temperature and Neutral Density Over Beijing During Minor Geomagnetic Storm on 3–4 February 2022

Li,

Ren,

et al. 2024

On 3 February 2022, 38 satellites launched by SpaceX re‐entered the atmosphere and were subsequently destroyed. An investigation found that a minor geomagnetic storm occurred on 3–4 February 2022 led to a neutral density enhancement and large atmospheric drag. To better understand the responses of the thermosphere to geomagnetic storms, the method proposed by Li et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ja030988) was employed to extract exospheric temperature (Tex) from ionosonde electron density profiles (∼150–200 km) in Beijing (geolocation: 39.56°N; 116.2°E; geomagnetic location: 30.16°N; 172.08°W) station. The retrieved Tex was plugged into the NRLMSISE‐00 model to calculate the corresponding neutral density. Derived results showed a ∼2%–7% enhancement in Tex and a ∼15%–38% enhancement in neutral density at 430 km. The relative deviation in neutral density on the satellites’ orbital trajectory ranges from ∼10% (210 km) to ∼35% (500 km) on 3 February, and from ∼13% (210 km) to ∼60% (500 km) on 4 February. Furthermore, the neutral density reproduced the variations observed by the SWARM‐C satellite fairly well both on quiet and disturbed days. These results suggest that even a minor geomagnetic storm can cause significant changes in neutral temperature and neutral density at middle latitudes. Additionally, the application of our inversion method, combined with the global, long‐term and real‐time ionospheric observations from ionosondes, provides an opportunity to improve the capability of thermosphere forecasting and nowcasting.

Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum

Ray,

Thayer,

Sutton

et al. 2024

With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade receivers on satellites like SWARM, CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE have been extensively used for atmospheric density retrieval, limited research has explored the potential of less accurate data from commercial operators. This study focuses on two methods to estimate atmospheric densities from precision orbit determination (POD) products—precise positions and velocities—utilizing synthetic data sets. The first method, termed “POD accelerometry” treats the POD products as measurements to a reduced‐dynamic POD scheme with the goal of estimating densities using stochastic parameters. The second method known as the energy dissipation rate (EDR) approach derives densities from changes in orbital energy. The relative contributions of various error sources—dynamics model uncertainties, and POD noise—to the estimated densities are studied for a limited set of orbital regimes and space weather activity, and possible error mitigation strategies are suggested. The performance of the two methods and their sensitivities to these various error sources are compared for circular orbits in the altitude regime 300–800 km during solar minimum . EDR and POD accelerometry have comparable performances for high drag, low POD noise environments, whereas the latter performs considerably better in low drag , high POD noise ( cm) environments, with densities retrieved at higher cadences for the orbital regimes considered in this work during solar minimum.