The location of low Mach number bow shocks at Earth

On April 26 and 27 and May 10–12, 1999, unusually low solar wind densities produced unusually low Alfven Mach numbers that moved the Earth's bow shock far out past its normal location. The shocks observed by the Wind spacecraft corresponded to shock subsolar distances of 45 and 42 RE, respectiv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2001-11, Vol.106 (A11), p.25361-25376
Main Authors: Fairfield, D. H., Iver, H. Cairns, Desch, M. D., Szabo, A., Lazarus, A. J., Aellig, M. R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Earth, ocean, space
Exact sciences and technology
External geophysics
Interaction between magnetosphere and interplanetary space
Physics of the magnetosphere
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:On April 26 and 27 and May 10–12, 1999, unusually low solar wind densities produced unusually low Alfven Mach numbers that moved the Earth's bow shock far out past its normal location. The shocks observed by the Wind spacecraft corresponded to shock subsolar distances of 45 and 42 RE, respectively, on these days which are the most distant locations at which the shock has ever been seen. Shock observations by three other spacecraft on these days along with 34 previously reported distant shocks are used to compare with the predictions of different models. A recent MHD bow shock model of Cairns and Lyon [1995] predicts the observed locations quite well as does a modified gasdynamic model of Farris and Russell [1994] if a new Mach‐number‐dependent shape parameter is used. A third model of Verigin et al. [1997] also predicts a shock shape and is also quite good. Bow shock predictions are limited by uncertainties in measurements of the very low densities and uncertainties in the position and shape of the magnetopause. Asymmetries in the shock shape caused by the interplanetary magnetic field direction and not accounted for by models are another likely source of uncertainty. These uncertainties make it impossible to clearly favor one theoretical model over another.
ISSN:0148-0227
2156-2202
DOI:10.1029/2000JA000252