Showing 1–5 of 5 results for author: Gkioulidou, M

Reimagining Heliophysics: A bold new vision for the next decade and beyond

Authors: Ian J. Cohen, Dan Baker, Jacob Bortnik, Pontus Brandt, Jim Burch, Amir Caspi, George Clark, Ofer Cohen, Craig DeForest, Gordon Emslie, Matina Gkioulidou, Alexa Halford, Aleida Higginson, Allison Jaynes, Kristopher Klein, Craig Kletzing, Ryan McGranaghan, David Miles, Romina Nikoukar, Katariina Nykyrii, Larry Paxton, Louise Prockter, Harlan Spence, William H. Swartz, Drew L. Turner , et al. (3 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: The field of Heliophysics has a branding problem. We need an answer to the question: ``What is Heliophysics\?'', the answer to which should clearly and succinctly defines our science in a compelling way that simultaneously introduces a sense of wonder and exploration into our science and our missions. Unfortunately, recent over-reliance on space weather to define our field, as opposed to simply us… ▽ More The field of Heliophysics has a branding problem. We need an answer to the question: ``What is Heliophysics\?'', the answer to which should clearly and succinctly defines our science in a compelling way that simultaneously introduces a sense of wonder and exploration into our science and our missions. Unfortunately, recent over-reliance on space weather to define our field, as opposed to simply using it as a practical and relatable example of applied Heliophysics science, narrows the scope of what solar and space physics is and diminishes its fundamental importance. Moving forward, our community needs to be bold and unabashed in our definition of Heliophysics and its big questions. We should emphasize the general and fundamental importance and excitement of our science with a new mindset that generalizes and expands the definition of Heliophysics to include new ``frontiers'' of increasing interest to the community. Heliophysics should be unbound from its current confinement to the Sun-Earth connection and expanded to studies of the fundamental nature of space plasma physics across the solar system and greater cosmos. Finally, we need to come together as a community to advance our science by envisioning, prioritizing, and supporting -- with a unified voice -- a set of bold new missions that target compelling science questions - even if they do not explore the traditional Sun- and Earth-centric aspects of Heliophysics science. Such new, large missions to expand the frontiers and scope of Heliophysics science large missions can be the key to galvanizing the public and policymakers to support the overall Heliophysics program. △ Less

Submitted 22 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Journal ref: Bulletin of the AAS, Vol. 55, Issue 3, Whitepaper #071 (6pp); 2023 July 31

The case for studying other planetary magnetospheres and atmospheres in Heliophysics

Authors: Ian J. Cohen, Chris Arridge, Abigail Azari, Chris Bard, George Clark, Frank Crary, Shannon Curry, Peter Delamere, Ryan M. Dewey, Gina A. DiBraccio, Chuanfei Dong, Alexander Drozdov, Austin Egert, Rachael Filwett, Jasper Halekas, Alexa Halford, Andréa Hughes, Katherine Garcia-Sage, Matina Gkioulidou, Charlotte Goetz, Cesare Grava, Michael Hirsch, Hans Leo F. Huybrighs, Peter Kollmann, Laurent Lamy , et al. (15 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Heliophysics is the field that "studies the nature of the Sun, and how it influences the very nature of space - and, in turn, the atmospheres of planetary bodies and the technology that exists there." However, NASA's Heliophysics Division tends to limit study of planetary magnetospheres and atmospheres to only those of Earth. This leaves exploration and understanding of space plasma physics at oth… ▽ More Heliophysics is the field that "studies the nature of the Sun, and how it influences the very nature of space - and, in turn, the atmospheres of planetary bodies and the technology that exists there." However, NASA's Heliophysics Division tends to limit study of planetary magnetospheres and atmospheres to only those of Earth. This leaves exploration and understanding of space plasma physics at other worlds to the purview of the Planetary Science and Astrophysics Divisions. This is detrimental to the study of space plasma physics in general since, although some cross-divisional funding opportunities do exist, vital elements of space plasma physics can be best addressed by extending the expertise of Heliophysics scientists to other stellar and planetary magnetospheres. However, the diverse worlds within the solar system provide crucial environmental conditions that are not replicated at Earth but can provide deep insight into fundamental space plasma physics processes. Studying planetary systems with Heliophysics objectives, comprehensive instrumentation, and new grant opportunities for analysis and modeling would enable a novel understanding of fundamental and universal processes of space plasma physics. As such, the Heliophysics community should be prepared to consider, prioritize, and fund dedicated Heliophysics efforts to planetary targets to specifically study space physics and aeronomy objectives. △ Less

Submitted 24 August, 2023; v1 submitted 22 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Signature of a heliotail organized by the solar magnetic field and the role of non-ideal processes in modeled IBEX ENA maps: a comparison of the BU and Moscow MHD models

Authors: M. Kornbleuth, M. Opher, I. Baliukin, M. A. Dayeh, E. Zirnstein, M. Gkioulidou, K. Dialynas, A. Galli, J. D. Richardson, V. Izmodenov, G. P. Zank, S. Fuselier

Abstract: Energetic neutral atom (ENA) models typically require post-processing routines to convert the distributions of plasma and H atoms into ENA maps. Here we investigate how two different kinetic-MHD models of the heliosphere (the BU and Moscow models) manifest in modeled ENA maps using the same prescription and how they compare with Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) observations. Both MHD models t… ▽ More Energetic neutral atom (ENA) models typically require post-processing routines to convert the distributions of plasma and H atoms into ENA maps. Here we investigate how two different kinetic-MHD models of the heliosphere (the BU and Moscow models) manifest in modeled ENA maps using the same prescription and how they compare with Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) observations. Both MHD models treat the solar wind as a single-ion plasma for protons, which include thermal solar wind ions, pick-up ions (PUIs), and electrons. Our ENA prescription partitions the plasma into three distinct ion populations (thermal solar wind, PUIs transmitted and ones energized at the termination shock) and models the populations with Maxwellian distributions. Both kinetic-MHD heliospheric models produce a heliotail with heliosheath plasma organized by the solar magnetic field into two distinct north and south columns that become lobes of high mass flux flowing down the heliotail, though in the BU model the ISM flows between the two lobes at distances in the heliotail larger than 300 AU. While our prescription produces similar ENA maps for the two different plasma and H atom solutions at the IBEX-Hi energy range (0.5 - 6 keV), the modeled ENA maps require a scaling factor of ~2 to be in agreement with the data. This problem is present in other ENA models with the Maxwellian approximation of multiple ion species and indicates that a higher neutral density or some acceleration of PUIs in the heliosheath is required. △ Less

Submitted 26 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: 29 pages, 3 tables, 9 figures, accepted to ApJ

The development of a split-tail heliosphere and the role of non-ideal processes: a comparison of the BU and Moscow models

Authors: M. Kornbleuth, M. Opher, I. Baliukin, M. Gkioulidou, J. D. Richardson, G. P. Zank, A. T. Michael, G. Toth, V. Tenishev, V. Izmodenov, D. Alexashov, S. Fuselier, J. F. Drake, K. Dialynas

Abstract: Global models of the heliosphere are critical tools used in the interpretation of heliospheric observations. There are several three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) heliospheric models that rely on different strategies and assumptions. Until now only one paper has compared global heliosphere models, but without magnetic field effects. We compare the results of two different MHD models, the B… ▽ More Global models of the heliosphere are critical tools used in the interpretation of heliospheric observations. There are several three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) heliospheric models that rely on different strategies and assumptions. Until now only one paper has compared global heliosphere models, but without magnetic field effects. We compare the results of two different MHD models, the BU and Moscow models. Both models use identical boundary conditions to compare how different numerical approaches and physical assumptions contribute to the heliospheric solution. Based on the different numerical treatments of discontinuities, the BU model allows for the presence of magnetic reconnection, while the Moscow model does not. Both models predict collimation of the solar outflow in the heliosheath by the solar magnetic field and produce a split-tail where the solar magnetic field confines the charged solar particles into distinct north and south columns that become lobes. In the BU model, the ISM flows between the two lobes at large distances due to MHD instabilities and reconnection. Reconnection in the BU model at the port flank affects the draping of the interstellar magnetic field in the immediate vicinity of the heliopause. Different draping in the models cause different ISM pressures, yielding different heliosheath thicknesses and boundary locations, with the largest effects at high latitudes. The BU model heliosheath is 15% thinner and the heliopause is 7% more inwards at the north pole relative to the Moscow model. These differences in the two plasma solutions may manifest themselves in energetic neutral atom measurements of the heliosphere. △ Less

Submitted 26 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: 2 tables, 12 figures, accepted to ApJ

The in-situ exploration of Jupiter's radiation belts (A White Paper submitted in response to ESA's Voyage 2050 Call)

Authors: Elias Roussos, Oliver Allanson, Nicolas André, Bruna Bertucci, Graziella Branduardi-Raymont, George Clark, Kostantinos Dialynas, Iannis Dandouras, Ravindra Desai, Yoshifumi Futaana, Matina Gkioulidou, Geraint Jones, Peter Kollmann, Anna Kotova, Elena Kronberg, Norbert Krupp, Go Murakami, Quentin Nénon, Tom Nordheim, Benjamin Palmaerts, Christina Plainaki, Jonathan Rae, Daniel Santos-Costa, Theodore Sarris, Yuri Shprits , et al. (4 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Jupiter has the most energetic and complex radiation belts in our solar system. Their hazardous environment is the reason why so many spacecraft avoid rather than investigate them, and explains how they have kept many of their secrets so well hidden, despite having been studied for decades. In this White Paper we argue why these secrets are worth unveiling. Jupiter's radiation belts and the vast m… ▽ More Jupiter has the most energetic and complex radiation belts in our solar system. Their hazardous environment is the reason why so many spacecraft avoid rather than investigate them, and explains how they have kept many of their secrets so well hidden, despite having been studied for decades. In this White Paper we argue why these secrets are worth unveiling. Jupiter's radiation belts and the vast magnetosphere that encloses them constitute an unprecedented physical laboratory, suitable for both interdisciplinary and novel scientific investigations: from studying fundamental high energy plasma physics processes which operate throughout the universe, such as adiabatic charged particle acceleration and nonlinear wave-particle interactions; to exploiting the astrobiological consequences of energetic particle radiation. The in-situ exploration of the uninviting environment of Jupiter's radiation belts present us with many challenges in mission design, science planning, instrumentation and technology development. We address these challenges by reviewing the different options that exist for direct and indirect observation of this unique system. We stress the need for new instruments, the value of synergistic Earth and Jupiter-based remote sensing and in-situ investigations, and the vital importance of multi-spacecraft, in-situ measurements. While simultaneous, multi-point in-situ observations have long become the standard for exploring electromagnetic interactions in the inner solar system, they have never taken place at Jupiter or any strongly magnetized planet besides Earth. We conclude that a dedicated multi-spacecraft mission to Jupiter's radiation belts is an essential and obvious way forward and deserves to be given a high priority in ESA's Voyage 2050 programme. △ Less

Submitted 6 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.

Comments: 28 pages, 3 Tables, 11 Figures