Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm
Abstract On 3 February 2022, at 18:13 UTC, SpaceX launched and a short time later deployed 49 Starlink satellites at an orbit altitude between 210 and 320 km. The satellites were meant to be further raised to 550 km. However, the deployment took place during the main phase of a moderate geomagnetic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | Space Weather |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003521 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841536344075010048 |
|---|---|
| author | Jianhui He Elvira Astafyeva Xinan Yue Nicholas M. Pedatella Dong Lin Timothy J. Fuller‐Rowell Mariangel Fedrizzi Mihail Codrescu Eelco Doornbos Christian Siemes Sean Bruinsma Frederic Pitout Adam Kubaryk |
| author_facet | Jianhui He Elvira Astafyeva Xinan Yue Nicholas M. Pedatella Dong Lin Timothy J. Fuller‐Rowell Mariangel Fedrizzi Mihail Codrescu Eelco Doornbos Christian Siemes Sean Bruinsma Frederic Pitout Adam Kubaryk |
| author_sort | Jianhui He |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract On 3 February 2022, at 18:13 UTC, SpaceX launched and a short time later deployed 49 Starlink satellites at an orbit altitude between 210 and 320 km. The satellites were meant to be further raised to 550 km. However, the deployment took place during the main phase of a moderate geomagnetic storm, and another moderate storm occurred on the next day. The resulting increase in atmospheric drag led to 38 out of the 49 satellites reentering the atmosphere in the following days. In this work, we use both observations and simulations to perform a detailed investigation of the thermospheric conditions during this storm. Observations at higher altitudes, by Swarm‐A (∼438 km, 09/21 Local Time [LT]) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow‐On (∼505 km, 06/18 LT) missions show that during the main phase of the storms the neutral mass density increased by 110% and 120%, respectively. The storm‐time enhancement extended to middle and low latitudes and was stronger in the northern hemisphere. To further investigate the thermospheric variations, we used six empirical and first‐principle numerical models. We found the models captured the upper and lower thermosphere changes, however, their simulated density enhancements differ by up to 70%. Further, the models showed that at the low orbital altitudes of the Starlink satellites (i.e., 200–300 km) the global averaged storm‐time density enhancement reached up to ∼35%–60%. Although such storm effects are far from the largest, they seem to be responsible for the reentry of the 38 satellites. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-972a5487c7dd4ff59bd4c5f43b14d009 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1542-7390 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Space Weather |
| spelling | doaj-art-972a5487c7dd4ff59bd4c5f43b14d0092025-01-14T16:31:22ZengWileySpace Weather1542-73902023-09-01219n/an/a10.1029/2023SW003521Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic StormJianhui He0Elvira Astafyeva1Xinan Yue2Nicholas M. Pedatella3Dong Lin4Timothy J. Fuller‐Rowell5Mariangel Fedrizzi6Mihail Codrescu7Eelco Doornbos8Christian Siemes9Sean Bruinsma10Frederic Pitout11Adam Kubaryk12Key Laboratory of Earth and Planetary Physics Institute of Geology and Geophysics Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing ChinaUniversité Paris Cité Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP) CNRS UMR 7154 Paris FranceKey Laboratory of Earth and Planetary Physics Institute of Geology and Geophysics Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing ChinaHigh Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USAHigh Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USANOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USANOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USANOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USAKoninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut De Bilt The NetherlandsDelft University of Technology Delft The NetherlandsGET/CNES Space Geodesy Office Toulouse FranceInstitut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP) Toulouse FranceNOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USAAbstract On 3 February 2022, at 18:13 UTC, SpaceX launched and a short time later deployed 49 Starlink satellites at an orbit altitude between 210 and 320 km. The satellites were meant to be further raised to 550 km. However, the deployment took place during the main phase of a moderate geomagnetic storm, and another moderate storm occurred on the next day. The resulting increase in atmospheric drag led to 38 out of the 49 satellites reentering the atmosphere in the following days. In this work, we use both observations and simulations to perform a detailed investigation of the thermospheric conditions during this storm. Observations at higher altitudes, by Swarm‐A (∼438 km, 09/21 Local Time [LT]) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow‐On (∼505 km, 06/18 LT) missions show that during the main phase of the storms the neutral mass density increased by 110% and 120%, respectively. The storm‐time enhancement extended to middle and low latitudes and was stronger in the northern hemisphere. To further investigate the thermospheric variations, we used six empirical and first‐principle numerical models. We found the models captured the upper and lower thermosphere changes, however, their simulated density enhancements differ by up to 70%. Further, the models showed that at the low orbital altitudes of the Starlink satellites (i.e., 200–300 km) the global averaged storm‐time density enhancement reached up to ∼35%–60%. Although such storm effects are far from the largest, they seem to be responsible for the reentry of the 38 satellites.https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003521 |
| spellingShingle | Jianhui He Elvira Astafyeva Xinan Yue Nicholas M. Pedatella Dong Lin Timothy J. Fuller‐Rowell Mariangel Fedrizzi Mihail Codrescu Eelco Doornbos Christian Siemes Sean Bruinsma Frederic Pitout Adam Kubaryk Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm Space Weather |
| title | Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm |
| title_full | Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm |
| title_short | Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Models of the Thermospheric Density Enhancement During the 3–4 February 2022 Geomagnetic Storm |
| title_sort | comparison of empirical and theoretical models of the thermospheric density enhancement during the 3 4 february 2022 geomagnetic storm |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003521 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jianhuihe comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT elviraastafyeva comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT xinanyue comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT nicholasmpedatella comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT donglin comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT timothyjfullerrowell comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT mariangelfedrizzi comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT mihailcodrescu comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT eelcodoornbos comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT christiansiemes comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT seanbruinsma comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT fredericpitout comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm AT adamkubaryk comparisonofempiricalandtheoreticalmodelsofthethermosphericdensityenhancementduringthe34february2022geomagneticstorm |