Advanced Search

EPP

地球与行星物理

ISSN  2096-3955

CN  10-1502/P

Citation: Wang, C. Q., Chang, Z., Zhang, X. X., Shen, G. H., Zhang, S. Y., Sun, Y. Q., Li, J. W., Jing, T., Zhang, H. X., Sun, Y and Zhang, B. Q. (2020). Proton belt variations traced back to Fengyun-1C satellite observations. Earth Planet. Phys., 4(6), 611–618doi: 10.26464/epp2020069

doi: 10.26464/epp2020069

SPACE PHYSICS: MAGNETOSPHERIC PHYSICS

Proton belt variations traced back to Fengyun-1C satellite observations

1. 

National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

2. 

Beijing Key Laboratory of Space Environment Exploration, Beijing 100190, China

3. 

Environmental Space Situation Awareness-SSA, Beijing 100190, China

4. 

National Center for Space Weather, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China

Corresponding author: ChunQin Wang, wcq@nssc.ac.cn

Received Date: 2020-04-28
Web Publishing Date: 2020-11-09

We used historical data to trace trapped protons observed by the Fengyun-1C (FY-1C) satellite at low Earth orbits (~800 km) and chose data at 5–10 MeV, 10–40 MeV, 40–100 MeV, and ~100–300 MeV from 25 March to 18 April 2000 to analyze the proton variations. Only one isolated strong storm was associated with a solar proton event during this period, and there was no influence from previous proton variations. Complex dynamic phenomena of proton trapping and loss were affected by this disturbance differently depending on the energy and L location. The flux of 5–10 MeV protons increased and created new trapping with a maximum at L ~2.0, and the peak flux was significantly higher than that at the center of the South Atlantic Anomaly. However, at higher L, the flux showed obvious loss, with retreat of the outer boundary from L ~2.7 to L ~2.5. The increase in the 10–40 MeV proton flux was similar to that of the 5–10 MeV flux; however, the peak flux intensity was lower than that at the center of the South Atlantic Anomaly. The loss of the 10–40 MeV proton flux was closer to the Earth side, and the outer boundary was reduced from L ~2.3 to L ~2.25. For the higher energy protons of 40–100 MeV and 100–300 MeV, no new trapping was found. Loss of the 40–100 MeV protons was observed, and the outer boundary shifted from L ~2.0 to L ~1.9. Loss was not obvious for the 100–400 MeV protons, which were distributed within L < 1.8. New proton trapping was more likely to be created at lower energy in the region of solar proton injection by the strong magnetic storm, whereas loss occurred in a wide energy range and reduced the outer boundary on the Earth side. Similar dynamic changes were observed by the NOAA-15 satellite in the same period, but the FY-1C satellite observed more complex changes in lower energy protons. These results revealed that the dynamic behavior of protons with different L-shells was due to differences in the pitch angle. Possible mechanisms related to new trapping and loss are also discussed. These mechanisms are very important for understanding the behavior of the proton belt in the coming solar cycle.

Key words: high-energy proton, trapping, loss, disturbance, inner radiation belt

Albert, J. M., Ginet, G. P., and Gussenhoven, M. S. (1998). CRRES observations of radiation belt protons: 1. Data overview and steady stateradial diffusion. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 103(A5), 9261–9273. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA02869

Blake, J. B., Kolasinski, W. A., Fillius, R. W., and Mullen, E. G. (1992). Injection of electrons and protons with energies of tens of MeV into L >3 on 24 March1991. Geophys. Res. Lett., 19(8), 821–824. https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL00624

Gussenhoven, M. S., Mullen, E. G., and Violet, M. D. (1994). Solar particle events as seen on CRRES. Adv. Space Res., 14(10), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(94)90517-7

Hudson, M. K., Elkington, S. R., Lyon, J. G., Marchenko, V. A., Roth, I., Temerin, M., Blake, J. B., Gussenhoven, M. S., and Wygant, J. R. (1997). Simulations of radiation belt formation during storm sudden commencements. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 102(A7), 14087–14102. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03995

Hudson, M. K., Marchenko, V. A., Roth, I., Temerin, M., Blake, J. B., and Gussenhoven, M. S. (1998). Radiation belt formation during storm sudden commencements and loss during main phase. Adv. Space Res., 21(4), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00969-1

Kuznetsov, N. V., and Nikolaeva, N. I. (2012). Empirical model of pitch-angle distributions of trapped protons on the inner boundary of the Earth’s radiation belt. Cosmic Res., 50(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952512010054

Lazutin, L. L., Kuznetsov, S. N., and Podorol’skii, A. N. (2007). Dynamics of the radiation belt formed by solar protons during magnetic storms. Geomagn. Aeron., 47(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793207020053

Li, X. L., Roth, I., Temerin, M., Wygant, J. R., Hudson, M. K, and Blake, J. B. (1993). Simulation of the prompt energization and transport of radiation belt particles during the March 24, 1991 SSC. Geophys. Res. Lett., 20(22), 2423–2426. https://doi.org/10.1029/93GL02701

Looper, M. D., Blake, J. B., and Mewaldt, R. A. (2005). Response of the inner radiation belt to the violent Sun–Earth connection events of October–November 2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(3), L03S06. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021502

Lorentzen, K. R., Mazur, J. E., Looper, M. D., Fennell, J. F., and Blake, J. B. (2002). Multisatellite observations of MeV ion injections duringstorms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 107(A9), SMP 7-1–SMP 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000276

Pavlov, N. N., Tverskaya, L. V., Tverskoj, B. A., and Chuchkov, E. A. (1993). Variations of energetic particles in the radiation belts during the strong magnetic storm of March 24-26, 1991. Geomagn. Aeron., 33(6), 41–45.

Rodger, C. J., Clilverd, M. A., Green, J. C., and Lam, M. M. (2010). Use of POES SEM-2 observations to examine radiation belt dynamics and energetic electron precipitation into the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 115(A4), A04202. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA014023

Selesnick, R. S., Looper, M. D., andMewaldt, R. A. (2007). A theoretical model of the inner proton radiation belt. SpaceWea., 5(4), S04003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006SW000275

Selesnick, R. S., Hudson, M. K., and Kress, B. T. (2010). Injection and loss of inner radiation belt protons during solar proton events andmagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 115(A8), A08211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015247

Selesnick, R. S., Baker, D. N., Jaynes, A. N., Li, X., Kanekal, S. G., Hudson, M. K., and Kress, B. T. (2014). Observations of the inner radiationbelt: CRAND and trapped solar protons. J. Geophys. Res.:Space Phys., 119(8), 6541–6552. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020188

Selesnick, R. S., Baker, D. N., Jaynes, A. N., Li, X., Kanekal, S. G., Hudson, M. K., and Kress, B. T. (2016). Inward diffusion and loss ofradiation belt protons. J. Geophys. Res.:Space Phys., 121(3), 1969–1978. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA022154

Wang, C. Q., Zhang, X. G., Li, J. W., Huang, G., Zhang, X. X., Jiang, T., Shen, G. H., Zhang, S. Y., Cao, G. W., … Han, Y. (2013). Cross-calibration of high energetic particles data—A case study between FY-3B and NOAA-17. Sci. China Technol. Sci., 56(11), 2668–2674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-013-5375-2

Wang, S. J., Zhu, G. W., Liang, J. B., Zhang, W., Li, B. Q., and Shu, W. M. (2001). FY-1C space particle composition monitor and the results detected. Aerospace Shanghai, 18(2), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-1630.2001.02.004

Zou, H., Zong, Q. G., Parks, G. K., Pu, Z. Y., Chen, H. F., and Xie, L. (2011). Response of high-energy protons of the inner radiation belt to large magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 116(A10), A10229. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016733

[1]

Xin Ma, Zheng Xiang, BinBin Ni, Song Fu, Xing Cao, Man Hua, DeYu Guo, YingJie Guo, XuDong Gu, ZeYuan Liu, Qi Zhu, 2020: On the loss mechanisms of radiation belt electron dropouts during the 12 September 2014 geomagnetic storm, Earth and Planetary Physics. doi: 10.26464/epp2020060

[2]

BinBin Ni, Jing Huang, YaSong Ge, Jun Cui, Yong Wei, XuDong Gu, Song Fu, Zheng Xiang, ZhengYu Zhao, 2018: Radiation belt electron scattering by whistler-mode chorus in the Jovian magnetosphere: Importance of ambient and wave parameters, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 1-14. doi: 10.26464/epp2018001

[3]

Jing Huang, XuDong Gu, BinBin Ni, Qiong Luo, Song Fu, Zheng Xiang, WenXun Zhang, 2018: Importance of electron distribution profiles to chorus wave driven evolution of Jovian radiation belt electrons, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 371-383. doi: 10.26464/epp2018035

[4]

LiangQuan Ge, JianKun Zhao, QingXian Zhang, YaoYao Luo, Yi Gu, 2018: Mapping of the lunar surface by average atomic number based on positron annihilation radiation from Chang’e-1, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 238-246. doi: 10.26464/epp2018023

[5]

Jiang Yu, Jing Wang, Jun Cui, 2019: Ring current proton scattering by low-frequency magnetosonic waves, Earth and Planetary Physics, 3, 365-372. doi: 10.26464/epp2019037

[6]

Jing Wang, XiaoJun Xu, Jiang Yu, YuDong Ye, 2020: South-north asymmetry of proton density distribution in the Martian magnetosheath, Earth and Planetary Physics, 4, 32-37. doi: 10.26464/epp2020003

[7]

Di Liu, ZhongHua Yao, Yong Wei, ZhaoJin Rong, LiCan Shan, Stiepen Arnaud, Espley Jared, HanYing Wei, WeiXing Wan, 2020: Upstream proton cyclotron waves: occurrence and amplitude dependence on IMF cone angle at Mars — from MAVEN observations, Earth and Planetary Physics, 4, 51-61. doi: 10.26464/epp2020002

[8]

JiaShun Hu, LiJun Liu, Quan Zhou, 2018: Reproducing past subduction and mantle flow using high-resolution global convection models, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 189-207. doi: 10.26464/epp2018019

[9]

Qiu-Gang Zong, Hui Zhang, 2018: In situ detection of the electron diffusion region of collisionless magnetic reconnection at the high-latitude magnetopause, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 231-237. doi: 10.26464/epp2018022

[10]

Wei Chu, JianPing Huang, XuHui Shen, Ping Wang, XinQiao Li, ZhengHua An, YanBing Xu, XiaoHua Liang, 2018: Preliminary results of the High Energetic Particle Package on-board the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 489-498. doi: 10.26464/epp2018047

[11]

Chao Wei, Lei Dai, SuPing Duan, Chi Wang, YuXian Wang, 2019: Multiple satellites observation evidence: High-m Poloidal ULF waves with time-varying polarization states, Earth and Planetary Physics, 3, 190-203. doi: 10.26464/epp2019021

[12]

Zhi Wei, Li Zhao, 2019: Lg-Q model and its implication on high-frequency ground motion for earthquakes in the Sichuan and Yunnan region, Earth and Planetary Physics, 3, 526-536. doi: 10.26464/epp2019054

[13]

Tong Dang, JiuHou Lei, XianKang Dou, WeiXing Wan, 2017: A simulation study of 630 nm and 557.7 nm airglow variations due to dissociative recombination and thermal electrons by high-power HF heating, Earth and Planetary Physics, 1, 44-52. doi: 10.26464/epp2017006

[14]

Xiao Xiao, Jiang Wang, Jun Huang, Binlong Ye, 2018: A new approach to study terrestrial yardang geomorphology based on high-resolution data acquired by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): A showcase of whaleback yardangs in Qaidam Basin, NW China, Earth and Planetary Physics, 2, 398-405. doi: 10.26464/epp2018037

Article Metrics
  • PDF Downloads()
  • Abstract views()
  • HTML views()
  • Cited by(0)
Catalog

Figures And Tables

Proton belt variations traced back to Fengyun-1C satellite observations

ChunQin Wang, Zheng Chang, XiaoXin Zhang, GuoHong Shen, ShenYi Zhang, YueQiang Sun, JiaWei Li, Tao Jing, HuanXin Zhang, Ying Sun, BinQuan Zhang