Issue |
J. Space Weather Space Clim.
Volume 14, 2024
|
|
---|---|---|
Article Number | 23 | |
Number of page(s) | 11 | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2024022 | |
Published online | 26 August 2024 |
Technical Article
SODA – A tool to predict storm-induced orbit decays for low Earth-orbiting satellites
1
Graz University of Technology, Institute for Geodesy (IfG), Steyrergasse 30, A-8010 Graz, Austria
2
University of Graz, Institute of Physics, Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz, Austria
* Corresponding author: sandro.krauss@tugraz.at
Received:
18
December
2023
Accepted:
18
June
2024
Due to the rapidly increasing technological progress in the last decades, the issue of space weather and its influences on our everyday life has more and more importance. Today, satellite-based navigation plays a key role in aviation, logistic, and transportation systems. With the strong rise of the current solar cycle 25 the number and intensity of solar eruptions increasesd. The forecasting tool SODA (Satellite Orbit DecAy) is based on an interdisciplinary analysis of space geodetic observations and solar wind in-situ measurements. It allows the prediction of the impact of in-situ measured interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) on the altitude of low Earth-orbiting satellites at 490 km with a lead time of about 20 h, which is defined as the time difference between measuring the minimum Bz component and the orbit decay reaching its maximum. Additionally, it classifies the severeness of the expected geomagnetic storm in the form of the Space Weather G–scale from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For the establishment and validation of SODA, we examined 360 ICME events over a period of 21 years. Appropriated variations in the thermospheric neutral mass density, were derived mainly from measurements of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission. Related changes in the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz were investigated from real-time measurements using data from spacecraft located at the Lagrange point L1. The analysis of the ICME-induced orbit decays and the interplanetary magnetic field showed a strong correlation as well as a time delay between the ICME and the associated thermospheric response. The derived results are implemented in the forecasting tool SODA, which is integrated into the Space Safety Program (Ionospheric Weather Expert Service Center; I.161) of the European Space Agency (ESA).
Key words: Forecasting / Orbit decay / Geomagnetic storms / CME / ESA Space Safety Programme
© S. Krauss et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2024
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
Our Sun is an active star and variations in solar activity have a direct impact on Earth’s magnetic field and its different atmospheric layers (so-called space weather), starting from changes in the strength of solar wind coupling processes with the magnetosphere down to neutral density variations in the thermosphere. As the activity level increases, more and more energy is deposited into the Earth’s atmosphere causing it to heat up and expand (Knipp et al., 2004; Forbes, 2007). This leads to a higher neutral density in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, and as a result, the natural satellite orbit decay for low Earth orbiting (LEO) satellites increases due to a higher drag force acting on these satellites (e.g., Sutton et al., 2005; Bruinsma et al., 2006; Doornbos, 2012; Emmert, 2015).
Due to the long history of sunspot records, there is a very good knowledge about the Sun’s activity level changing over a period of about 11 years. Against predictions from previous studies, recent investigations expect the maximum to be higher compared to cycle 24 and to occur already mid-2024 to early 2025 (McIntosh et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Nagovitsyn and Ivanov, 2023). As a consequence, the impacts on the upper Earth’s atmosphere are expected to be more severe compared to the preceding solar cycle (Bruinsma et al., 2021; Oliveira et al., 2021). A daily updated comparison of observed and predicted sunspot numbers is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Sunspot numbers observed from 1975 to 2023 and comparison to two sunspot number predictions for solar cycle 25. The first prediction was made by the NOAA/NASA/ISES panel in 2019 (blue curve) and the second is based on the timing of the so-called terminator event (McIntosh et al., 2023) in the revised version from early 2023 (red curve). An average solar cycle is shown for reference (green curve). Source: helioforecast.space/solarcycle, accessed on June, 4 in 2024. |
Accompanying the strong rise of the current solar cycle also the number of space weather affecting phenomena, such as solar flares and interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs), increases (see e.g., review by Temmer, 2021). When carrying a strong southward directed magnetic field component (Bz), ICMEs have the capability to trigger geomagnetic storms, which may damage technical infrastructure on Earth (see review by e.g., Pulkkinen, 2007) as well as disrupt satellites in space, when flying in very low orbits as recently experienced with the so-called “Starlink event” (Dang et al., 2022; Fang et al., 2022; Kataoka et al., 2022). ICMEs, therefore, can be responsible for interferences of navigation and telecommunication services (Hapgood et al., 2021), may lead to an increase in radiation doses in air traffic, increase in the natural decay of satellite orbits (Krauss et al., 2020), and can even cause severe damage to power equipment and lead to complete shutdowns of power transmission lines as it was the case in Quebec 1989 (Bolduc, 2002; Boteler, 2019). Hence, the deterioration of these modern and familiar services becomes immediately apparent to anybody. As a result, space agencies like ESA and NASA initiated programs and working groups (e.g., ESA’s Space Safety Program, NASA’s Heliophysics Division for Space Weather) dealing with this topic. The objective is to support the independent utilization of and access to, space through the provision of timely and accurate information and data regarding the space environment-, particularly regarding hazards to infrastructure in orbit and on the ground. A recent ESA study1 estimated that the potential socio-economic impact in Europe today from a single extreme space weather event could be about €15 billion.
In the following, we describe the development and functionality of the forecasting service called SODA (Satellite Orbit DecAy). SODA has been included in the ESA Space Safety Program in the Expert Service Center “Ionospheric Weather” (I.161) since the portal release 3.7.0. on July 11, 2023. Based on real-time measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz, SODA predicts the impact of an ICME event on LEO satellites at 490 km with an area-to-mass ratio of a GRACE type satellite in terms of the storm-induced orbit decay (Chen et al., 2012; Oliveira and Zesta, 2019; Krauss et al., 2018, 2020). The average lead time of the forecast is derived from about 20 h. Furthermore, it has the capability to classify the severeness of the expected geomagnetic storm in the form of the Space Weather G–scale from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In the upcoming Section 2, we will describe the datasets that we used to establish SODA, discuss how we selected the ICME events, and outline the determination of satellite orbit decays based on neutral mass densities. In Section 3, we will discuss the findings from the correlation analysis of the various datasets and present the forecasting tool SODA and its validation. In the concluding outlook Section 4, we will recap the current state of SODA and go into more detail about future updates of the forecasting tool.
2 Data and methods
As an overview, Figure 2 shows a standard illustration of typically observed ICME structures and related in-situ measurements (left panel from Zurbuchen and Richardson, 2006; right panel from Temmer and Bothmer, 2022). ICMEs can be identified by shocks and associated turbulent sheath regions, as well as by their strong magnetic field structures. The latter appear smoother than the interplanetary magnetic field and show rotation signatures (to the strong and smoothly rotating magnetic field structure of the ICME we refer to as ‘magnetic ejecta’). These features are used for the ICME selection process and for the calculation of the magnetic field variations, especially the minimum value of the Bz within the ICME.
Figure 2 From in-situ measurements distinct structures can be identified such as shock-sheath (blue), leading-edge (yellow), and magnetic ejecta (green). The magnetic ejecta with its strong and smoothly rotating magnetic field is most directly related to the orbit decay of satellites. The Figure is adapted from Zurbuchen and Richardson (2006) and Temmer and Bothmer (2022). |
As could be already shown in Krauss et al. (2015, 2018), the strongest effects on the neutral density in the thermosphere stems from a strong negative Bz component in the magnetic field structure of an ICME. The increase in neutral density is mostly related to the magnetic ejecta, which presumably represents a flux rope, as detected by the smooth and rotating magnetic field vector components in the interplanetary magnetic field. The basis of the SODA tool is therefore the statistical relation between the thermospheric density increase and the magnetic field variations during ICME occurrences as derived from in-situ measurements, such as the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE; Stone et al., 1998) and Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR; Burt and Smith, 2012) spacecraft.
For the estimation of the neutral mass densities, we mainly rely on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission (Tapley et al., 2004). As input data we used the Level-1B data products for the accelerometer measurements (ACC1B), spacecraft attitude (SCA1B) and orbits (GNV1B) with a resampled temporal resolution of 5 s. The final orbit decays are processed based on 60 s density solutions. As a consequence, for the statistical analysis i.e. relating interplanetary magnetic field and neutral density variations in the Earth’s thermosphere, we examine ICMEs which that occurred during the GRACE mission duration from 2002 to 2017 (299 events). Events that emerged afterwards are used to validate the SODA tool (61 events). To accomplish this task we additionally analyzed data from the satellite missions GRACE Follow-On (GRACE-FO Kornfeld et al., 2019) and Swarm (Olsen et al., 2013).
2.1 Solar event selection
For the definition of the specific ICME period, we used the ICME occurrence times listed in the catalog2 thoroughly maintained by Richardson and Cane (R&C; Richardson and Cane, 2013). Within the R&C catalogue various information (e.g., mean and maximum velocity, the existence of a magnetic ejecta), about a specific ICME are listed. Also included are the time stamps of the disturbance start (shock) as well as the start and end time of the magnetic ejecta based on plasma and magnetic field observations. For our analysis, we used these provided timestamps to assign the minimum value of the ICME magnetic field component Bz and to calculate the orbit decay, which is based on the neutral density estimates, to each single event. For our main investigation period (2002–2017), there are in total 299 ICMEs listed by R&C. By checking the quality of the ICME data as well as the thermospheric density profiles, during the analysis it became evident that not all of these events are reasonable suitable for the analysis and further establishment of SODA. The shortcomings and number of events that needed to be discarded from the analysis include:
Low event strength, i.e. no significant density increase could be observed (83 events).
Occurrence of data gaps at any point during the ICME (23 events).
Insufficient time between successive ICME events to reliably distinguish their individual effects (35 events).
Density did not recede to the background intensity prior to the event (45 events).
The last point is problematic, because a continuing further enhanced density after the event makes a meaningful detection of the orbit decay and its end time unreliable. Regarding the ICME events that occurred within a short period of time (interacting ICMEs), we decided to combine some of these events into one single event. The prerequisite was that the events occurred within 6 h. As a result, we introduce ten new events, which are tagged as “combined” events. From the total number of 299 ICME events, we finally selected a subset of 116 events for a thorough analysis and the subsequent development of the SODA tool. The complete data-set created within this study is made publicly available (Krauss et al., 2023). Besides temporal information about the respective ICME event, it further comprises knowledge about various geomagnetic and solar activity indices as well as the observed minima of the interplanetary Bz component and observed orbit decays derived from different satellite missions (including meta-information about the event).
2.2 Orbit decay from thermospheric density estimation
The SODA tool makes use of the relation between the thermospheric density increase Δρ and variations in the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz of an ICME. To estimate the neutral mass density, we apply two different approaches. The first is based on accelerometer measurements onboard a satellite (Bruinsma et al., 2006; Sutton, 2008; Doornbos, 2012; Emmert, 2015) and is used in case of processing the satellite missions CHAMP (Reigber et al., 2002), GRACE and GRACE-FO. To extend the number of applicable satellites (e.g., Swarm) we additionally calculated mass densities based on kinematic orbit information (Suesser-Rechberger et al., 2022) using Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) measurements. The suitability of this second approach has already been demonstrated by other research groups (e.g., van den IJssel et al., 2020; Callejon Cantero, 2023). In Figure 3, the processing chain for both applied approaches is depicted. In either case, we have to reduce the total non-gravitational accelerations on the satellites by undesired forces like solar radiation pressure, Earth radiation pressure, and thermal re-radiation of the satellite. For the establishment of the first SODA release, we used the models described in Krauss et al. (2020).
Figure 3 Processing chain for the estimation of neutral densities from satellite observations. In red the procedure based on accelerometer measurements is outlined and in blue the kinematic orbit approach is illustrated. The abbreviations stand for: Solar radiation pressure (SRP), Earth radiation pressure (ERP), Spacecraft re-radiation (SRR), Reduced dynamic orbit (RDO), Kinematic orbit (KIN), and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). |
As revealed by Figure 3, applying the second approach implies one preceding step: a fit of the dynamic orbit to the kinematic observations. For this step, the atmospheric drag is determined from the kinematic orbit positions by means of a least-square adjustment. This involves setting up the equation of motion with all conservative and non-conservative forces acting on the satellite. Thereby, the atmospheric drag force is excluded since it has to be determined during the adjustment. The dynamic orbit model is obtained by integrating the equation of motion twice. This model is then fitted to the kinematic positions and the due to aerodynamic acceleration is estimated.
Afterwards, regardless of the approach, the neutral mass density ρ can be estimated based on the equation for aerodynamic drag acceleration (Anderson, 2017) ad and following Doornbos (2012), written as:
In equation (1) the respective x-components of the aerodynamic acceleration aa and the dimensionless force coefficient Ca which represents the sum of the drag and lift coefficient for each single satellite plate that is subject to the flow are used. The satellite mass is indicated by m and Aref is the reference area of the entire spacecraft. The magnitude of satellite velocity relative to the co-rotating atmosphere is denoted by vr. Thermospheric wind circulations are incorporated by applying the horizontal wind model HWM14 (Drob et al., 2015). Specific information about the satellite geometry and the thermo-optical properties are taken from the individual satellite mission documents (Bruinsma and Biancale, 2003; Bettadpur, 2012; Siemes, 2019; Hackel et al., 2017; Fernandez, 2019). New findings by Siemes et al. (2023) and Hładczuk et al. (2024) regarding deficiencies within the GRACE-FO satellite model (size and reflectivity properties) in the official documents (GRACE-FO, Wen et al., 2019) are currently under investigation and will be incorporated in the next release of SODA for events after the launch in May 2018.
Due to the slightly elliptic orbit, the satellites altitude changes during one orbital revolution. Thus, the neutral mass densities were normalized to average altitudes of 490 km following Bruinsma and Biancale (2003) and using the empirical thermosphere model Jacchia-Bowman 2008 (Bowman et al., 2008). On this basis, it is possible to determine comparable storm-induced satellite orbit decays over a longer time span. As outlined by Krauss et al. (2020), the orbit decay itself can be represented by the temporal change of the mean semi-major orbit axis ā and written as:
Here ρ denotes the storm induced density variations, which represents the difference between the observed density value ρ and ρb the background density of the Earth thermosphere (Krauss et al., 2018). We specify the latter as the mean density for two consecutive satellite revolutions prior to the ICME arrival time (see R&C disturbance time). Further included are the Earth’s gravitational parameter GM as well as the mean semi-major axis ā estimated over the period of the ICME event and an eccentricity function ψ(e), which can be considered to be approximately 1 for satellites currently under consideration.
Exemplary, Figure 4 depicts for an ICME event in November 2003 the evolution of the neutral density, the triggered storm-induced orbit decay, and the associated orbit decay rate for the GRACE-A satellite at a normalized altitude of 490 km. The latter is used to define the end of the orbit decay, which we define to be the time when the orbit decay rate declines to the pre-event state. A more in-depth description can be found in Chen et al. (2014), Oliveira and Zesta (2019), Krauss et al. (2020) and Li and Lei (2021).
Figure 4 Impact of an ICME in November 2003 on the GRACE-A satellite (normalized to 490 km). The top panel shows the neutral density evolution, middle panel the resulting orbit decay (OD), and bottom panel the OD rate (black lines). Additionally illustrated are the calculated background density (orange line), the disturbance time (red line), and the ICME plasma/field start and end times (blue line) taken from the R&C catalog and the start and end times of the orbit decay (green lines). |
3 Results
3.1 Correlation analysis
For the development of SODA, a combined analysis of the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz and the thermospheric density increase in the form of storm-induced satellite orbit decays was performed. The existence of a utilizable linear relation between the minimum Bz component in ICMEs and the maximum orbit decay has been shown by Krauss et al. (2018). Applying the identified ICME times we performed an automatic minimum Bz detection and compared that to the calculated orbit decay. In that respect, we note that due to the occurrence of high variations in the interplanetary magnetic field, the automatic detection of the minimum Bz value had to be revised manually in only two out of 116 cases. We, therefore, conclude that this approach leads to a reliable automatic detection of the minimum Bz component and robust performance of SODA in the operational mode. Figure 5 shows the findings of the regression analysis between the storm-induced orbit decay and the minimum value of the ICME Bz component. We derive from the analysis a linear relation with y = −0.55x−0.76 with a Pearson correlation coefficient of −0.78. For SODA, we use the results from the derived linear relation to forecast the orbit decay.
Figure 5 Scatter plot of the minimum Bz component measured by the Advanced Composition Explorer with the storm-induced orbit decay at 490 km comprising the 116 ICME events used for the SODA establishment. Indicated with black dashed lines is the 95% prediction band and with solid orange lines the 95% confidence interval. |
Real-time measurements of the Bz component are available from the ACE or DSCOVR spacecraft located at the Lagrange Point L1, 1.5 × 106 km upstream of Earth. With the ICME passing L1, the minimum Bz value is automatically extracted,Our real-time processing automatically extracts the minimum Bz value, from which the orbit decay is subsequently calculated. As the ICME needs on average approximately 30–45 min, depending on its propagation speed, from L1 to reach the Earth, there is some time for advance warning. Moreover, as already shown in Figure 4, the maximum orbit decay is not reached instantaneously as the ICME hits Earth due to the storm cycle development (Kamide et al., 1998). Hence, we gain additional lead time for the prediction, which we in general defined as the time difference between measuring the minimum Bz component and the orbit decay reaching its maximum. In this context, the left panels in Figure 6 show in detail the profile and temporal relations between the density increase in the upper Earth’s atmosphere, the storm-induced orbit decay, and the variations of the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz for the largest ICME event during the solar cycle 23 on November 20, 2003 (Liu and Lühr, 2005).
Figure 6 (Left) From top to bottom the panels show the evolution of the neutral density, the orbit decay, and the observed Bz component for an ICME event on November 20, 2003. In each panel, the red dashed line corresponds to the detection time of the minimum Bz and the green dashed line to the detected end time of the orbit decay. (Right) Histogram showing the time difference between the minimum of the Bz component detected at L1 (from real-time in-situ measurements) and the orbit decay reaching its maximum for all 116 ICME events. |
By analyzing the temporal behavior of the Bz component together with the storm-induced orbit decays for all 116 ICME events, we derive the time delay for each single event, as given presented in Figure 6 in the form of a histogram plot. On average, a time difference of around 20 h is obtained, which we use as a definition of the average lead time for the SODA service.
To obtain a standardized measure for the expected severeness of the geomagnetic storm and the associated orbit decay, we additionally conducted a joint analysis with the geomagnetic index ap. Figure 7 shows the correlation between the estimated orbit decay at 490 km and the maximum value of the geomagnetic index ap for the 116 analyzed ICMEs. From this analysis, we derive a linear relation with y = −0.07x + 1.24 with and a Pearson correlation coefficient of −0.79. As a result, the severeness of the expected ICME impact can be classified using the NOAA geomagnetic storm scale (G1–G53), which follows the geomagnetic index kp, which is closely connected to the analyzed ap index (Menvielle et al., 2011).
Figure 7 Orbit decay as a function of the geomagnetic index ap used to deviate the severeness level of the storm indices orbit decay. Indicated with black dashed lines is the 95% prediction band and with solid orange lines the 95% confidence interval. |
3.2 Visualization of the SODA tool
The graphical presentation of the forecasting tool SODA, as it is integrated into the ESA Space Safety Program (Ionospheric Weather Expert Service Center; I.161), is visualized in Figure 8. The illustration of the interdisciplinary observation analysis is divided into an upper and lower part. In both cases, observations of the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz (ACE, DSCOVR) and the storm-induced satellite orbit decay forecast for 490 km are visualized. For a more convenient overview of past solar events, the upper two panels depict the history of the parameters over the last 50 days. Thus, the user can review past events very easily. In contrast, the lower panels show the evolution over the last four days for a closer examination. In both cases, the red vertical line represents the current time (present) and the gray shaded area highlights the lead time of the 20-h forecast period.
Figure 8 Illustration of the SODA tool, integrated into ESA’s Space Safety Programme, during late September and early November 2023, Highlighted is the prediction of a G-class storm for November 6, 2023 which triggered stable auroral red, arcs which were even visible over central Europe. |
Based on the statistical analysis of the training data (116 ICMEs) with and the geomagnetic index ap, the level of the ICME impact on the Earth’s atmosphere is divided into different classes. When SODA predicts an orbit decay, a coloured dot appears in the forecast area. The dot, which is color-coded according to the level of the impact and divides and illustrates geomagnetic storms as follows: minor (G1) in green, moderate (G2) in blue, strong (G3) in violet, severe (G4) in orange and extreme (G5) in red. Regardless of the current state always the complete intensity range is displayed. To improve the readability, we visualize only orbit decays which that correspond at least to a G1 class storm. For interested users in the complete data range, ESA’s SODA service also offers an archive where the data are stored without any restrictions.
3.3 Validation of forecasting
For the validation of the operational SODA forecasts, we use ICME events which that occurred after 2017 and were thus not part of the establishment ofused to train SODA. For maximum independence in the neutral density estimates based on GRACE-FO, we used external data provided by the Delft University of Technology.4 Table 1 presents the results for ten of the biggest events during 2018–2023. For each of the ICME events, we list the geomagnetic index Dst (Sugiura, 1964; Sugiura et al., 1991), the detected minimum of the Bz component, the prediction value ofthe orbit decay predicted by SODA, as well as our reference value – the observed orbit decay based on external density data. Additionally, also a classification of the triggered geomagnetic storm is presented.
Overview of a selection of ICME events that were used for validation purposes. For each event, we list the geomagnetic index Dst, the detected min Bz component, the prediction value of SODA, the observed orbit decay using external density data, and finally the solution based on the predicted solar and geomagnetic indices. Remarks: (i) * refers to a combined observed solution of the ICMEs on February 1 and 3 in 2022. (ii) for the indicated event in April 2023, we used our own density estimates since no external data were available.
The results reveal, that SODA is capable to predict the impact of ICMEs on the Earth’s upper atmosphere and, at the same time, the storm-induced orbit decays in a variety of cases. Most events have an accuracy in the low meter range. However, there are also events where the prediction quality is lower. In the following, we will discuss three examples. The first event occurred on May 12, 2021, for which SODA predicted a significantly higher orbit decay than observed in the post-processing (10.8 m vs. 4.4 m). In contrast to the orbit decay, the predicted geomagnetic storm intensity (G3) by the registered value of the kp = 7 index. A detailed description of this specific event was elaborated provided by Piersanti et al. (2022). We suspect that cooling effects (Mlynczak et al., 2014; Knipp et al., 2017; Bag et al., 2023) have occurred, which subsequently reduced the increase of the neutral mass density during this specific event. In Oliveira and Zesta (2019) the authors have quantified such density uncertainties due to NO cooling effects and shown that they are more pronounced during the recovery phase of storms. A more detailed investigation in this direction is currently being carried out.
The second event we highlight is the most prominent example on our validation list. It is related to the ICME events at the beginning of February 2022, which can be associated with the loss of 38 Starlink satellites. Though a series of two ICMEs arrived on Earth on February 1 and 3, 2022, they were not particularly strong with minimum Bz values of more than −20 nT. However, the external energy injection into the thermosphere might have generated a sufficiently high enhancement in the neutral density in the LEO environment to support the de-orbiting of these satellites (Fang et al., 2022). To take this ICME interaction process into account, the value depicted in Table 1 and marked with * refers to a combined post-processed solution of the two ICMEs. The combined solution (8.9 m) is close to the observed one (11.0 m), while analyzing the events separately would lead to orbit decays of about 3 m and 7 m, respectively. This indicates that events that occur sequentially in a short period of time need special attention for a reliable forecast. For this particular event, we would like to stress that SODA estimated only a moderate drop stemming from the ICMEs, for a satellite in a 490 km orbit. However, the Starlink satellites were in much lower (~210 km) and thus more dangerous orbit heights, even for a weak/moderate geomagnetic storm. While the ICMEs contributed to the orbit drop of the satellites, it may not necessarily have been the primary cause of the loss of the Starlink satellites (Baruah et al., 2024).
The third event we would like to discuss in more detail occurred on July 07 (09:00 UT) in 2022. For this ICME, it became apparent that the predicted value of SODA was too low. This could be related to the fact that this event was the first out of a series of three incoming ICMEs, with two further events arriving at Earth on July 8 (02:00 UT) and July 9 (12:00 UT). According to the R&C catalog, the start of the second event was earlier than the end of the first event, and the minimum Bz values for the three events were measured with −18 nT, −10 nT, and −6 nT, respectively. Thus, the forecast may have deteriorated because especially the second ICME superposes the first event of the superposition of the first and second ICMEs. Together, this shows that forecasting becomes increasingly difficult when events overlap in time. For improving the forecast of such complex events, more detailed investigations are required to better understand the relation between the minimum Bz and neutral density.
4 Outlook
One aspect we are currently focusing on is complex magnetic ejecta events. As shown in Section 3.3, forecasts of SODA perform very well for the majority of the ICME events. However, one weakness in the current version becomes apparent when multiple field compression regions within anone event occur. Especially, during high solar activity phases, the interactions between ICMEs may happen on a frequent basis (Lugaz et al., 2017). In this process, shocks of one ICME may penetrate the magnetic field of another ICME, propagating ahead and compressing a different region of theat ICME’s magnetic field (e.g., Lugaz et al., 2015; Scolini et al., 2020). By investigating consecutively arriving ICMEs, it could be shown that the combination of two events occurring within a time window of less than 6 h (“combined” events) was beneficial for the determination of the orbit decay. However, overlaps within larger time windows could not be successfully predicted (see July 07, 2022 event described in Section 3.3). On the other hand, we found that when there are more than two events in a series of incoming ICMEs, only the first two have a significant effect on the orbit decay (see Master thesis by Kroisz, 2023). With this in mind, further research and in-depth analysis of such events is required to expand the existing ICME database and improve the predictions on the effects of magnetically complex ICMEs on LEO satellites. In this regard, it is planned to incorporate more parameters (e.g., solar wind speed) in the prediction process.
Another objective is the unification and combination of different available ICME catalog. For the first SODA release, we solely investigated ICME events mentioned in the R&C catalogue. Even though this list has a long comprehensive history, there are still events missing, which are cited in other sources (Nieves-Chinchilla et al., 2018; Larrodera and Cid, 2020; Möstl et al., 2020). Based on a careful unification, the samples of solar events could be increased (see Larrodera and Temmer, 2024).
Finally, to increase the stability of the forecast, for the next SODA release the database used for the next SODA release will be extended by the events which were currently used only for validation purposes. In this context, new findings regarding radiation pressure modeling (Wöske et al., 2019; Siemes et al., 2023; Hładczuk et al., 2024) and the treatment of magnetic field data (Oliveira, 2023) will be incorporated, and two additional altitude layers (400 km and 450 km) will be introduced for the forecast.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the use of the satellite data from ACE, DSCOVR, CHAMP, GRACE, GRACE-FO, and Swarm as well as the World Data Center (WDC) for Geomagnetism, Kyoto. ACE data used in this study were obtained through the OMNI database (omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov). We would like to thank the German Space Operations Center (GSOC) of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) for providing continuously and nearly 100% of the raw telemetry data of the twin GRACE and GRACE-FO satellites. Related products concerning the GRACE-FO mission can be obtained from NASA’s Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/GRACE-FO) and the GFZ’s Information System and Data Center (https://isdc.gfz-potsdam.de/grace-fo-isdc/). The authors further acknowledge the support by the FFG/ASAP Program under grant SWEETS (881427), CASPER (900588), the Austrian Science Fund FWF for funding the project ESPRIT (P-33620-N), and ESA’s Space Weather Service Network Development (SWESNET) project for supporting the implementation of SODA into the I-ESC under the contract number 4000134036/21/D/MRP. All neutral mass densities are calculated using the in-house software package GROOPS (Mayer-Gürr et al., 2021). Finally, the SODA database created during this study can be accessed through the Data repository of the Graz University of Technology Krauss et al. (2023). The editor thanks Denny Oliveira and Christian Siemes for their assistance in evaluating this paper.
References
- Anderson J. 2017. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill series in aeronautical and aerospace engineering, McGraw-Hill Education, UK. ISBN 9781259251344. [Google Scholar]
- Bag T, Rout D, Ogawa Y, Singh V. 2023. Distinctive response of thermospheric cooling to ICME and CIR-driven geomagnetic storms. Front Astron Space Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1107605. [Google Scholar]
- Baruah Y, Roy S, Sinha S, Palmerio E, Pal S, Oliveira DM, Nandy D. 2024. The loss of Starlink satellites in February 2022: how moderate geomagnetic storms can adversely affect assets in low-Earth orbit. Space Weather 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003716. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bettadpur S. 2012. GRACE product specification document, revision 4.6, center for space research. Technical Report GRACE, The University of Texas at Austin. [Google Scholar]
- Bolduc L. 2002. GIC observations and studies in the Hydro-Québec power system. J Atmos Sol-Terrest Phys 64(16): 1793–1802. Space Weather Effects on Technological Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00128-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Boteler DH. 2019. A 21st century view of the March 1989 magnetic storm. Space Weather 17(10): 1427–1441. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002278. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bowman B, Tobiska WK, Marcos F, Huang C, Lin C, Burke W. 2008. A new empirical thermospheric density model JB2008 using new solar and geomagnetic indices. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6438. [Google Scholar]
- Bruinsma S, Biancale R. 2003. Total densities derived from accelerometer data. J Spacecraft Rockets 40(2): 230–236. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.3937. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bruinsma S, Fedrizzi M, Yue J, Siemes C, Lemmens S. 2021. Charting satellite courses in a crowded thermosphere. Eos 102. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO153475. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bruinsma S, Forbes JM, Nerem RS, Zhang X. 2006. Thermosphere density response to the 20–21 November 2003 solar and geomagnetic storm from CHAMP and GRACE accelerometer data. J Geophys Res Space Phys 111(A6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Burt J, Smith B. 2012. Deep space climate observatory: the DSCOVR mission. In: 2012 IEEE aerospace conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2012.6187025. [Google Scholar]
- Callejon Cantero M. 2023. Assimilation of Swarm C atmospheric density observations into NRLMSISE-00. Master thesis, Delft University of Technology. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:f472201e-0e32-4b9e-8aa3-04521908396a. [Google Scholar]
- Chen G-M, Xu J, Wang W, Burns AG. 2014. A comparison of the effects of CIR- and CME-induced geomagnetic activity on thermospheric densities and spacecraft orbits: statistical studies. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119(9): 7928–7939. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019831. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Chen G-M, Xu J, Wang W, Lei J, Burns AG. 2012. A comparison of the effects of CIR- and CME-induced geomagnetic activity on thermospheric densities and spacecraft orbits: case studies. J Geophys Res Space Phys 117(A8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA017782. [Google Scholar]
- Dang T, Li X, Luo B, Li R, Zhang B, Pham K, Ren D, Chen X, Lei J, Wang Y. 2022. Unveiling the space weather during the Starlink satellites destruction event on 4 February 2022. Space Weather 20(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003152. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Doornbos E. 2012. Thermospheric density and wind determination from satellite dynamics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-642-25128-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25129-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Drob DP, Emmert JT, Meriwether JW, Makela JJ, Doornbos E, et al. 2015. An update to the Horizontal Wind Model (HWM): the quiet time thermosphere. Earth Space Sci 2(7): 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EA000089. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Emmert JT. 2015. Thermospheric mass density: a review. Adv Space Res 56(5): 773–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.05.038. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Fang T-W, Kubaryk A, Goldstein D, Li Z, Fuller-Rowell T, Millward G, Singer HJ, Steenburgh R, Westerman S, Babcock E. 2022. Space weather environment during the SpaceX Starlink satellite loss in February 2022. Space Weather 20(11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003193. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez M. 2019. SENTINEL-1 properties for GPS POD, v1.4. Technical report GMV-GMESPOD-TN-0025, GMV solutions. https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/documents/247904/3455957/Sentinel-1-properties-for-GPS-POD. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes JM. 2007. Dynamics of the thermosphere. J Meteorol Soc Jpn Ser II 85B: 193–213. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.85B.193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hackel S, Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P, Balss U, Gisinger C, Eineder M. 2017. Model improvements and validation of TerraSAR-X precise orbit determination. J Geodesy 91(5): 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-016-0982-x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hapgood M, Angling MJ, Attrill G, Bisi M, Cannon PS, et al. 2021. Development of space weather reasonable worst-case scenarios for the UK national risk assessment. Space Weather 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002593. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hładczuk N, van den IJssel J, Kodikara T, Siemes C, Visser P. 2024. GRACE-FO radiation pressure modelling for accurate density and crosswind retrieval. Adv Space Res 73(5): 2355–2373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2023.12.059. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Kamide Y, Yokoyama N, Gonzalez W, Tsurutani BT, Daglis IA, Brekke A, Masuda S. 1998. Two-step development of geomagnetic storms. J Geophys Res Space Phys 103(A4): 6917–6921. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03337. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Kataoka R, Shiota D, Fujiwara H, Jin H, Tao C, Shinagawa H, Miyoshi Y. 2022. Unexpected space weather causing the reentry of 38 Starlink satellites in February 2022. J Space Weather Space Clim 12(2022): 41. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2022034. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Knipp D, Pette D, Kilcommons L, Isaacs T, Cruz A, Mlynczak M, Hunt L, Lin C. 2017. Thermospheric nitric oxide response to shock-led storms. Space Weather 15(2). [Google Scholar]
- Knipp DJ, Tobiska WK, Emery BA. 2004. Direct and indirect thermospheric heating sources for solar cycles 21–23. Sol Phys 224(1–2): 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-005-6393-4. [Google Scholar]
- Kornfeld RP, Arnold BW, Gross MA, Dahya NT, Klipstein WM, Gath PF, Bettadpur S. 2019. GRACE-FO: the gravity recovery and climate experiment follow-on mission. J Spacecraft Rockets 56(3): 931–953. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34326. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Krauss S, Behzadpour S, Temmer M, Lhotka C. 2020. Exploring thermospheric variations triggered by severe geomagnetic storm on 26 August 2018 using GRACE follow-on data. J Geophys Res Space Phys 125(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027731. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Krauss S, Drescher L, Temmer M, Suesser-Rechberger B, Kroisz S. 2023. Database for ESA Service Satellite Orbit DecAy (SODA). Dataset published on TU GRAZ Repository Bibliothek und Archiv. https://doi.org/10.3217/c53m9-rk057. [Google Scholar]
- Krauss S, Temmer M, Vennerstrom S. 2018. Multiple satellite analysis of the Earth’s thermosphere and interplanetary magnetic field variations due to ICME/CIR events during 2003–2015. J Geophys Res Space Phys 123(10): 8884–8894. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025778. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Krauss S, Temmer M, Veronig A, Baur O, Lammer H. 2015. Thermospheric and geomagnetic responses to interplanetary coronal mass ejections observed by ACE and GRACE: statistical results. J Geophys Res Space Phys 120(10): 8848–8860. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021702. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Kroisz S. 2023. Analyzing the impact of interactive ICMEs on satellite orbit decay from 2002 to 2022. Master thesis, Graz University of Technology and University of Graz. https://doi.org/10.3217/capb7-3w425. [Google Scholar]
- Larrodera C, Cid C. 2020. The distribution function of the average iron charge state at 1 AU: from a bimodal wind to ICME identification. Sol Phys 295(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-020-01727-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Larrodera C, Temmer M. 2024. Evolution of coronal mass ejections with and without sheaths from the inner to the outer heliosphere: statistical investigation for 1975 to 2022. A&A 685: A89. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348641. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Li R, Lei J. 2021. The determination of satellite orbital decay from POD data during geomagnetic storms. Space Weather 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002664. [Google Scholar]
- Liu H, Lühr H. 2005. Strong disturbance of the upper thermospheric density due to magnetic storms: CHAMP observations. J Geophys Res Space Phys 110(A9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010908. [Google Scholar]
- Lugaz N, Farrugia CJ, Smith CW, Paulson K. 2015. Shocks inside CMEs: a survey of properties from 1997 to 2006. J Geophys Res (Space Phys) 120(4): 2409–2427. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020848, 1503.04141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lugaz N, Temmer M, Wang Y, Farrugia CJ. 2017. The interaction of successive coronal mass ejections: a review. Sol Phys 292(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-017-1091-6, 1612.02398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Mayer-Gürr T, Behzadpour S, Eicker A, Ellmer M, Koch B, et al. 2021. GROOPS: a software toolkit for gravity field recovery and GNSS processing. Comput Geosci 155: 104864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104864. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- McIntosh SW, Leamon RJ, Egeland R. 2023. Deciphering solar magnetic activity: The (solar) hale cycle terminator of 2021. Front Astron Space Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Menvielle M, Iyemori T, Marchaudon A, Nosé M. Geomagnetic observations and models, chap. Geomagnetic indices, 183–228. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011. ISBN 978-90-481-9858-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9858-0. [Google Scholar]
- Mlynczak MG, Hunt LA, Mertens CJ, Thomas B, Russell III JM, Woods T, Earl Thompson R, Gordley LL. 2014. Influence of solar variability on the infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere from 2002 to 2014. Geophys Res Lett 41(7): 2508–2513. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Möstl C, Weiss AJ, Bailey RL, Reiss MA, Amerstorfer T, Hinterreiter J, Bauer M, McIntosh SW, Lugaz N, Stansby D. 2020. Prediction of the in situ coronal mass ejection rate for solar cycle 25: implications for parker solar probe in situ observations. Astrophys J 903(2). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb9a1. [Google Scholar]
- Nagovitsyn YA, Ivanov VG. 2023. Solar cycle pairing and prediction of cycle 25. Sol Phys 298(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-023-02121-w. [Google Scholar]
- Nieves-Chinchilla T, Vourlidas A, Raymond JC, Linton MG, Al-haddad N, Savani NP, Szabo A, Hidalgo MA. 2018. Understanding the internal magnetic field configurations of ICMEs using more than 20 years of wind observations. Sol Phys 293(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira DM. 2023. Interplanetary shock data base. Front Astron Space Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1240323. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira DM, Zesta E. 2019. Satellite orbital drag during magnetic storms. Space Weather 17(11): 1510–1533.https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002287. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira DM, Zesta E, Mehta PM, Licata RJ, Pilinski MD, Tobiska WK, Hayakawa H. 2021. The current state and future directions of modeling thermosphere density enhancements during extreme magnetic storms. Front Astron Space Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.764144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Olsen N, Friis-Christensen E, Floberghagen R, Alken P, Beggan CD, et al. 2013. The Swarm satellite constellation application and research facility (SCARF) and Swarm data products. Earth Planets Space 65(11):1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2013.07.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Piersanti M, Del Moro D, Parmentier A, Martucci M, Palma F, et al. 2022. On the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling during the May 2021 geomagnetic storm. Space Weather 20(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW003016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Pulkkinen T. 2007. Space weather: terrestrial perspective. Living Rev Sol Phys 4(1). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrsp-2007-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Reigber C, Lühr H, Schwintzer P. 2002. CHAMP mission status. Adv Space Res 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(02)00276-4. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson IG, Cane HV. 2013. Solar wind drivers of geomagnetic storms over more than four solar cycles. AIP Conf Proc 1539(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4811075. [Google Scholar]
- Scolini C, Chané E, Temmer M, Kilpua EKJ, Dissauer K, et al. 2020. CME-CME interactions as sources of CME geoeffectiveness: the formation of the complex ejecta and intense geomagnetic storm in 2017 early September. Astroph J Suppl Ser 247(1): 21. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216, 1911.10817. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Siemes C. 2019. Swarm satellite thermo-optical properties and external geometry, European Space Agency. Technical report v2.0 ESA-EOPG-MOM-MO-15. https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/documents/20142/37627/swarm-thermo-optical-properties-and-external-geometry.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Siemes C, Borries C, Bruinsma S, Fernandez-Gomez I, Hładczuk N, v. den IJssel J, Kodikara T, Vielberg K, Visser P. 2023. New thermosphere neutral mass density and crosswind datasets from CHAMP, GRACE, and GRACE-FO. J Space Weather Space Clim 13. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2023014. [Google Scholar]
- Stone EC, Frandsen AM, Mewaldt RA, Christian ER, Margolies D, Ormes JF, Snow F. 1998. The advanced composition explorer. Space Sci Rev 86(1):1–22.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005082526237. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Suesser-Rechberger B, Krauss S, Strasser S, Mayer-Guerr T. 2022. Improved precise kinematic LEO orbits based on the raw observation approach. Adv Space Res 69(10): 3559–3570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.03.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Sugiura M. 1964. Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY. Ann Int Geophys Yr 35. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4554034. [Google Scholar]
- Sugiura M, Kamei T, Berthelier A, Menvielle M, I. U. of Geodesy, Geophysics, I. A. of Geomagnetism, Aeronomy, I. C. of Scientific Unions. 1991. Equatorial Dst index, 1957–1986. ISGI Publications Office, Saint-Maur-Des-Fosses, France. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton E. 2008. Effects of solar disturbances on the thermosphere densities and winds from CHAMP and GRACE satellite accelerometer data. Phd thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton EK, Forbes JM, Nerem RS. 2005. Global thermospheric neutral density and wind response to the severe 2003 geomagnetic storms from CHAMP accelerometer data. J Geophys Res (Space Phys) 110(A9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010985. [Google Scholar]
- Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C. 2004. The gravity recovery and climate experiment: Mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019920. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Temmer M. 2021. Space weather: the solar perspective. Living Rev Sol Phys 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Temmer M, Bothmer V. 2022. Characteristics and evolution of sheath and leading edge structures of interplanetary coronal mass ejections in the inner heliosphere based on Helios and Parker Solar Probe observations. A&A 665. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243291. [Google Scholar]
- van den IJssel J, Doornbos E, Iorfida E, March G, Siemes C, Montenbruck O. 2020. Thermosphere densities derived from Swarm GPS observations. Adv Space Res 65(7):1758–1771.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.01.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Wen HY, Kruizinga G, Paik M, Landerer F, Bertiger W, Sakumura C, Bandikova T, Mccullough C. 2019. Gravity recovery and climate experiment follow-on (GRACE-FO) level-1 data product user handbook. JPL D-56935 (URS270772) 11. https://archive.podaac.earthdata.nasa.gov/podaac-ops-cumulus-docs/gracefo/open/docs/GRACE-FO_L1_Handbook.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Wöske F, Kato T, Rievers B, List M. 2019. GRACE accelerometer calibration by high precision non-gravitational force modeling. Adv Space Res 63(3): 1318–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Zhu H, Chen H, Zhu W, He M. 2023. Predicting solar cycle 25 using an optimized long short-term memory model based on sunspot area data. Adv Space Res 71(8): 3521–3531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.042. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Zurbuchen TH, Richardson IG. 2006. In-situ solar wind and magnetic field signatures of interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Space Sci Rev 123(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4. [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Krauss S, Drescher L, Temmer M, Suesser-Rechberger B, Strasser A, et al. 2024. SODA – A tool to predict storm-induced orbit decays for low Earth-orbiting satellites. J. Space Weather Space Clim. 14, 23. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2024022.
All Tables
Overview of a selection of ICME events that were used for validation purposes. For each event, we list the geomagnetic index Dst, the detected min Bz component, the prediction value of SODA, the observed orbit decay using external density data, and finally the solution based on the predicted solar and geomagnetic indices. Remarks: (i) * refers to a combined observed solution of the ICMEs on February 1 and 3 in 2022. (ii) for the indicated event in April 2023, we used our own density estimates since no external data were available.
All Figures
Figure 1 Sunspot numbers observed from 1975 to 2023 and comparison to two sunspot number predictions for solar cycle 25. The first prediction was made by the NOAA/NASA/ISES panel in 2019 (blue curve) and the second is based on the timing of the so-called terminator event (McIntosh et al., 2023) in the revised version from early 2023 (red curve). An average solar cycle is shown for reference (green curve). Source: helioforecast.space/solarcycle, accessed on June, 4 in 2024. |
|
In the text |
Figure 2 From in-situ measurements distinct structures can be identified such as shock-sheath (blue), leading-edge (yellow), and magnetic ejecta (green). The magnetic ejecta with its strong and smoothly rotating magnetic field is most directly related to the orbit decay of satellites. The Figure is adapted from Zurbuchen and Richardson (2006) and Temmer and Bothmer (2022). |
|
In the text |
Figure 3 Processing chain for the estimation of neutral densities from satellite observations. In red the procedure based on accelerometer measurements is outlined and in blue the kinematic orbit approach is illustrated. The abbreviations stand for: Solar radiation pressure (SRP), Earth radiation pressure (ERP), Spacecraft re-radiation (SRR), Reduced dynamic orbit (RDO), Kinematic orbit (KIN), and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). |
|
In the text |
Figure 4 Impact of an ICME in November 2003 on the GRACE-A satellite (normalized to 490 km). The top panel shows the neutral density evolution, middle panel the resulting orbit decay (OD), and bottom panel the OD rate (black lines). Additionally illustrated are the calculated background density (orange line), the disturbance time (red line), and the ICME plasma/field start and end times (blue line) taken from the R&C catalog and the start and end times of the orbit decay (green lines). |
|
In the text |
Figure 5 Scatter plot of the minimum Bz component measured by the Advanced Composition Explorer with the storm-induced orbit decay at 490 km comprising the 116 ICME events used for the SODA establishment. Indicated with black dashed lines is the 95% prediction band and with solid orange lines the 95% confidence interval. |
|
In the text |
Figure 6 (Left) From top to bottom the panels show the evolution of the neutral density, the orbit decay, and the observed Bz component for an ICME event on November 20, 2003. In each panel, the red dashed line corresponds to the detection time of the minimum Bz and the green dashed line to the detected end time of the orbit decay. (Right) Histogram showing the time difference between the minimum of the Bz component detected at L1 (from real-time in-situ measurements) and the orbit decay reaching its maximum for all 116 ICME events. |
|
In the text |
Figure 7 Orbit decay as a function of the geomagnetic index ap used to deviate the severeness level of the storm indices orbit decay. Indicated with black dashed lines is the 95% prediction band and with solid orange lines the 95% confidence interval. |
|
In the text |
Figure 8 Illustration of the SODA tool, integrated into ESA’s Space Safety Programme, during late September and early November 2023, Highlighted is the prediction of a G-class storm for November 6, 2023 which triggered stable auroral red, arcs which were even visible over central Europe. |
|
In the text |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.