Cosmic Research

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 115–122 | Cite as

On the Accuracy of the Conjugation of High-Orbit Satellites with Small-Scale Regions in the Ionosphere

Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

The degree of uncertainty that arises when mapping high-orbit satellites of the Cluster type into the ionosphere using three geomagnetic field models (T89, T98, and T01) has been estimated. Studies have shown that uncertainty is minimal in situations when a satellite in the daytime is above the equatorial plane of the magnetosphere at the distance of no more than 5 RE from the Earth’s surface and is projected into the ionosphere of the northern hemisphere. In this case, the dimensions of the uncertainty region are about 50 km, and the arbitrariness of the choice of the model for projecting does not play a decisive role in organizing satellite support based on optical observations when studying such large-scale phenomena as, e.g., WTS, as well as heating experiments at the EISCAT heating facility for the artificial modification of the ionosphere and the generation of artificial fluctuations in the VLF band. In all other cases, the uncertainty in determining the position of the base of the field line on which the satellite is located is large, and additional information is required to correctly compare the satellite with the object in the ionosphere.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Safargaleev, V.V., Sergienko, T.I., Safargaleev, A.V., and Kotikov, A.L., Magnetic and optical measurements and signatures of reconnection in the cusp and vicinity, Phys.-Usp., 2015, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 612–620.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sergienko, T., Sandahl, I., Gustavsson, B., et al., A study of fine structure of diffuse aurora with ALISFAST measurements, Ann. Geophys., 2008, vol. 26, 3185. doi 10.5194/angeo-26-3185-2008ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright, D.M., Davies, J.A., Yeoman, T.K., et al., Detection of artificially generated ULF waves by the FAST spacecraft and its application to the “tagging” of narrow flux tubes, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, vol. 108, 1090. doi 10.1029/2002JA009483Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Figueiredo, S., Marklund, G.T., Karlsson, T., et al., Temporal and spatial evolution of discrete auroral arcs as seen by Cluster, Ann. Geophys., 2005, vol. 23, pp. 2531–2557.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrugia, C.I., Sandholt, P.E., and Burlaga, L.F., Auroral activity associated with Kelvin–Helmholtz instability at the inner edge of the low-latitude boundary layer, J. Geophys. Res., 1994, vol. 99, pp. 19403–19411.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golovchanskaya, I.V., Kornilov, I.A., and Kornilova, T.A., East–west type precursor activity prior to the auroral onset: Ground-based and THEMIS observations, J. Geophys. Res., 2015, vol. 120. doi 10.1002/ 2014JA020081Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, J., Angelopoulos, V., Frey, H., et al., THEMIS observation of a substorm event on 04:35, 22 February 2008, Ann. Geophys., 2009, vol. 27, pp. 1831–1841.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yahnin, A.G., Despirak, I.V., Lubchich, A.A., et al., Indirect mapping of the source of the fast plasma flow reversal in the magnetospheric plasma sheet onto the auroral display, Ann. Geophys., 2006, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 679–687.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shevchenko, I.G., Sergeev, V., Kubyshkina, M., et al., Estimation of magnetosphere–ionosphere mapping accuracy using isotropy boundary and THEMIS observations, J. Geophys. Res., 2010, vol. 115, A11206. doi 10.1029/2010JA015354ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, Q.-H., Dunlop, M.W., Holme, R., and Woodfield, E.E., Comparison of eight years magnetic field data from Cluster with Tsyganenko models in the inner magnetosphere, Ann. Geophys., 2010, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 309–326.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ober, D.M., Maynard, N.C., Burke, W.J., et al., Mapping prenoon auroral structures to the ionosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 2000, vol. 105, no. A12, pp. 27519–27530.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Safargaleev, V.V., Shibaeva, D.N., Sergienko, T.I., and Kornilov, I.A., On the possibility of coupling satellite and ground-based optical measurements in the region of pulsating auroras, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2010, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 873–879.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blockx, C., Gérard, J.-C., Coumans, V., et al., A comparison between FUV remote sensing of magnetotail stretching and the T01 model during quiet conditions and growth phases, Ann. Geophys., 2007, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 161–170.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sato, N., Wright, D.M., Carlson, C.W., et al., Generation region of pulsating aurora obtained simultaneously by the FAST satellite and a Syowa–Iceland conjugate pair of observatories, J. Geophys. Res., 2004, vol. 109, A10201. doi 10.1029/2004JA010419ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kubyshkina, M.V., Sergeev, V.A., and Pulkkinen, T.I., Hybrid input algorithm: An event oriented magnetospheric model, J. Geophys. Res., 1999, vol. 104, no. A11, pp. 24977–24993.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aikio, A., Mursula, K., Buchert, S., et al., Vaivads, A., and Fazakerley, A., Temporal evolution of two auroral arcs as measured by the Cluster satellite and coordinated ground-based instruments, Ann. Geophys., 2004, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 4089–4101.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amm, O., Aikio, A., Bosqued, J.-M., et al., Mesoscale structure of a morning sector ionospheric shear flow region determined by conjugate Cluster IIand MIRACLR ground-based observations, Ann. Geophys., 2003, vol. 21, pp. 1737–1751.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsyganenko, N.A., A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn–dusk asymmetry. 2. Parameterization and fitting to observations, J. Geophys. Res., 2002, vol. 107, no. A8. doi 10.1029/2001JA000220Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heppner, J.P., Liebrecht, M.C., Maynard, N.C., and Pfaff, R.F., High-latitude distributions of plasma waves and spatial irregularities from DE2 alternating current electric field observations, J. Geophys. Res., 1993, vol. 98, pp. 1629–1652.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tereshchenko, E.D., Khudukon, B.Z., Rietveld, M.T., et al., The relationship between small-scale and largescale ionospheric electron density irregularities generated by powerful HFelectromagnetic waves at high latitudes, Ann. Geophys., 2006, vol. 24, pp. 2901–2909.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frolov, V.L., Bakhmet’eva, N.V., Belikovich, V.V., et al., Modification of the Earth’s ionosphere by highpower high-frequency radio waves, Phys.-Usp., 2007, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 315–324.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Piddyachiy, D., Inan, U.S., et al., DEMETER observations of an intense upgoing column of ELF/VLF radiation excited by the HAARP HF heater, J. Geophys. Res., 2008, vol. 113, A10308. doi 10.1029/2008JA013208ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polar Geophysical InstituteApatityRussia

Personalised recommendations